RAVI RAO GAIK WAD AND ORS. versus RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFARE ASSON. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 03-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RA VI RAO GAIK WAD AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFARE ASSON. AND ORS. 
MAY 3,2006 
[ARIJJT PASA Y AT AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ proceedings-
lmpleadment as intervenor-Appellants filed writ petition claiming deemed 
C grant of licence in its favour for carrying on business in video games-
Question in issue was to be decided only on basis of materials to be placed 
by Appellants and the official respondents--Respondent No. I had no role 
to play in the matter-Therefore, it cannot be permitted to participate in the 
writ proceedings-Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public Amusement 
(Bangalore City) Order, 1989-Gause 4(7) and (8). 
D 
Appellants filed writ petitions praying for declaration that they be 
deemed to have been granted licenses for carrying on business in video games 
in terms of Clause 4(8) of the Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public 
Amusement (Bangalore City) Order, 1989. In writ petitions, Respondent 
No. I filed application for impleadment as intervenor. The application was not 
E accepted. Single Judge of the High Court ultimately allowed the writ petitions. 
F 
On appeal by State Government and Respondent No.I, Division Bench of High 
Court remitted back the matter to the Single Judge but permitted Respondent 
No. I participate in writ proceedings before it. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. As the impugned order of the Division Bench goes to show, 
the Single Judge has been directed to consider the effect of certain orders 
which were placed for consideration by the official respondents. The question 
whether there was deemed grant of licence has to be considered on the basis 
G of materials to be placed by the Appellants and the official respondents. 
H 
Respondent No. I cannot throw any light on this issue. Therefore, the Division 
Bench was not justified in permitting Respondent No.I to participate in the 
proceedings before Single Judge.1752-F, GI 
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 
750 
RA VlRAOGAIKWADv. RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFAREASSON. [PASA YAT,J.] 751 
Haryana, Rohtak, [199913 SCC 141 and State of T.N. and Anr. v. Board of A 
Trustees of the Port of Madras, [1999) 4 SCC 630, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4449-4505 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.1999 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 3307-3313 of 1999. 
B 
L. Nageshwar Rao, D. Mahesh Babu and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the 
Appellants. 
Sanjay R. Hegde and Prakash Kumar Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the common 
Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court permitting 
the respondent No. I to participate in the proceedings before learned Single 
Judge, pursuant to the order of remand passed. 
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 
Several writ petitions were filed by the appellants praying for a 
declaration that the writ petitioners shall be deemed to have been granted 
licenses for carrying on business in video games at premises in question and 
for appropriate direction to the respondents in the wirt petitions not to 
interfere in their business relating to video games. 
c 
D 
E 
Learned Single Judge held that in the fact situation it shall be deemed 
that licenses have been granted. Under the provisions of Licensing and 
Controlling of Place of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (in 
short the 'Order'). Stand of the appellants was that they had filed applications 
which were not considered within the time prescribed under sub clause (7) F 
of Clause 4 of the Order and hence it shall be deemed that licences have been 
granted in terms of sub clause (8) of Clause 4. It is to be noted that a petition 
styled as "Public Interest Litigation" had been filed by respondent No. I 
which was dimissed. In the writ petitions filed, the respondent No. I filed 
application to be impleaded as an intervenor. No order accepting the prayer 
had been passed. The State of Karnataka as well as respondent No. I filed G 
Writ Appeals which were disposed of by the impugned judgments. The High 
Court held that certain documents were placed before it to show that orders 
had in fact been passed. Therefore the matter was remitted to learned Single 
Judge to consider the effect of such claim. While giving this dire

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.