RAVI RAO GAIK WAD AND ORS.versusRAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFARE ASSON. AND ORS.

A                   RA VI RAO GAIK WAD AND ORS.
                                 v.
         RAJAJINAGAR YOUTH SOCIAL WELFARE ASSON. AND ORS.

                                    MAY 3,2006

B               [ARIJJT PASA YAT 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.
    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
F
          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.
    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

H                                        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                             c
      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:                        D
       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.                           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 direction the
Dvision Bench inter alia directed as follows:
                                                                               H
    752                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A               "It is open to the intervenor to participate in the case."

           Challenge in these appeals is to the aforesaid quoted portion of the
    judgment passed by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the respondent
    No. I had failed in their attempt to cause problems so far as the appellants
    are concerned and the petition (writ petition No. 2869/97) filed by it was
B   dismissed. Application for being impleaded as intervener was also rejected
    and, therefore, the High Court could not have permitted it to participate before
    learned Single Judge. The bonafides of respondent No. I are doubtful. The
    question which is to be adjudicated by learned Single judge is whether the
    claim of the appellants regarding deemed license is acceptable or stand of the
C   official respondents to the effect that orders have in fact been passed and,
    therefore, there is no deemed license is correct. The question has to be
    decided on the basis of the materials to be placed by the official respondents
    and the respondent No. I have no role to play in the matter.

          Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that no
D   prejudice is caused to the appellants if permission granted by the High Court
    to the respondent No. I to participate is carried out.

          In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
    Haryana, Rohtak, [1993] 3 SCC 141 a three - Judge Bench observed that the
    only purpose of granting an application for intervetion is to entitle the
E   intervener to address argument in support of one or the other side. In State
    ofT.N. and Anr. v. Board of Trustees ofthe Port of Madras, [1994] 4 SCC 630.

          In the present case undisputedly the writ petition filed by the respondent
    No. I was dismissed. Additionally its prayer for intervention in the writ petitions
    was not accepted. As the impugned order of the Division Bench goes to
F   show, learned Single Judge has been directed to consider the effect of certain
    orders which were placed for consideration by the official respondents. As
    rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the question whether
    there was deemed grant of license has to be considered on the basis of
    materials to be placed by the appellants and the official respondents. The
G   respondent No. I cannot throw any light on this issue. Therefore, the Division
    Bench was not justified in permitting respondent No. I to particiapte in the
    proceedings before learned Single Judge. That part of the directions is set
    aside. The appeals are allowed to the above said extent. No costs.

    B.B.B.                                                          Appeals allowed.
                                                                                          <
H