Karnataka High Court
M/S Vagishwari Land Developers Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.6193 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
M/S VAGISHWARI LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1953
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT WORKAFELLA, CYBER CROWN
SEC-II, HUDA TECHNO ENCLAVE, MADHAPURA VILLAGE,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 081.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. SATISH JADHAV
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/WITH
SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPREENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 002.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
4. BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERLA MANAGER -
LAND ACQUISITION,
III FLOOR BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1
TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED FEBRUARY
22,2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A) AND NOTIFY
THE IMPACT ZONES, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE PETITIONER
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF PREMIUM FAR
ON PAYMENT OF PREMIUM FAR CHARGES; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner's grievance is against non-consideration of its representation dated 22.02.2022, at Annexure-A, wherein it has sought for notifying of the impact zone, the same having been a condition seeking for availing the benefit of enhanced FAR as recommended in terms of BBMP Shortfall Letter dated 17.02.2022, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner argues that there are already Rules promulgated in this regard and thus, there is a 3 statutory duty on the answering respondent to take a call in the matter.
2. Learned AGA on request appears for respondent Nos.1 & 3; Sri. Pramod Chandra, learned Panel Counsel too on request represents respondent Nos.2 & 4-BBMP functionaries.
3. Both the AGA and Panel Counsel oppose the Writ Petition contending that the exercise of notifying the impact zone is quasi legislative in nature and therefore, ordinarily the Writ Court do not grant indulgence in matters of the kind.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch, as when a person makes a grievance in writing, the authorities functioning under the statue or other instruments of law are bound to take a call thereon and inform the result of decision making to the concerned. This having not happened, petitioner is justifiably knocking at the doors of writ court.
4
In the above circumstances, petition is disposed off directing Respondent Nos.1 & 3 to consider the subject representation in accordance with the extant rules. Respondent No.2 shall facilitate such consideration by furnishing necessary and requisite material. All contentions are kept open.
It is open to the respondents to call for any information or documents from the side of the petitioneror BBMP, as are required for due consideration of the representation.
The time for compliance is three months. If delay is brooked, in the next level of legal battle, heavy cost may be imposed on the erring officials, personally.
Now, no costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS