Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abraham T. J. vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2017
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR
Review Petition No.195/2017
in
Writ Petition No.57366 of 2016 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.ABRAHAM T.J.
ANTI-CORRUPTION & SOCIAL ACTIVIST
S/O LATE SRI JOSEPH T.A.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
#2326, 'ASHIRWAD', 2ND 'A' CROSS
16TH 'B' MAIN, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE
INDIRANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 008
2. SRI.DASHRAT
S/O.LADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED
R/AT: #7/2/6/1, ALAND TALUK
GULBARGA-585 302
3. SRI.DEVAPPA
S/O.BHIMSHYA PUJARI
2
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/AT.BOOSNUR TANDA
ALAND TALUK
GULBARGA-585 302
4. SRI.SIDDARAMAPPA
S/O.RAMLINGAPPA DEVNUR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/AT.BHIMANAGARA, ALAND TALUK
GULBARGA-585 302
5. SRI.SUNIL BURE
S/O.MALLIKARJUN BURE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED
R/AT.SULTANPUR GALLI MAIN ROAD
ALAND TALUK, GULBARGA-585 302
6. SRI.KISHOR
S/O.VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED
R/AT.No.1/5/39, CHAKRI KATTA
NEAR MAIN ROAD, ALAND TALUK
GULBARGA-585 302
7. SRI.HIRA
S/O.MOTI RAM RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/AT.MURI SAB TANDA
ALAND TALUK
GULBARGA-585 302
8. SRI.DAYANAND PATIL
S/O.CHANDRASHAKER PATIL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCCUPATION: FARMER
3
PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA
RAITA SANGHA ®, R/AT.E/8/1450/2
E/8/1440 TO R/8/1579/1, NEHERUGANJ
FILTERBED, LAMBADA TANDA
GULBARGA-585 104 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI.K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI.GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
4TH FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE
KALABURAGI-MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102
KALABURAGI DISTRICT
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT OFFICE
KALABURAGI-MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
4
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102
KALABURAGI DISTRICT
6. THE TAHASILDAR
ALAND TALUK
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585 302
7. SRI.BHOJARAJ RAMACHANDRA PATIL
@ (B.R.PATIL), MLA-ALAND
CONSTITUENCY, GULBARGA DISTRICT
S/O.RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT.No.172, KHB COLONY
SHANTHINAGAR
GULBARGA - 585 103 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI.MADHUSUDHAN R. NAIK, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
SHRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO R6;
SHRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THE APPLICATION-IA-III OF 2017 PRAYING TO RECALL THE
ORDER DATED APRIL 3, 2017 IN WRIT PETITION No.57366/2016
HAS BEEN TREATED AS REVIEW PETITION VIDE ORDER DATED
APRIL 6, 2017.
THE REVIEW PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON APRIL 12, 2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
On April 3, 2017 this Court heard and disposed of writ petition No.57366 of 2016. Subsequently, an application, IA.III of 2017 was moved by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to recall the said order. When the application was taken up for hearing, Mr. K.G. Raghavan, learned senior counsel requested to treat the same as review petition and permit him to make submissions. Since, the writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation, we acceded to his request.
2. We have heard Mr. K.G.Raghavan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned advocate general for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.7.
3. Petitioners claiming to be public interest litigants are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-State to 6 construct 'Mini Vidhana Soudha' in Sy.No.696 of Aland Town, Kalaburagi District.
4. Mr. K.G.Raghavan, learned senior counsel contended that the State Government had decided to construct 'Mini Vidhana Soudha' in Sy.No.264 measuring 5 acres, jointly gifted by Smt.Leelavati, wife of Vasudev Bhatt Dixit and Smt.Jayashree, wife of Late, Vithal Bhatt Dixit under a Gift Deed dated October 31, 2015. However, Government suddenly changed their decision at the instance of 7th respondent with the Chief Minister recording his approval on the file to construct Mini Vidhana Soudha in Sy.No.696. He submitted that the said decision is capricious and, therefore, illegal. He relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651. He adverted to various inter-office correspondences between the Revenue Officers ranging from the Tahasildar to the Additional Chief Secretary 7 and argued that the State had accepted the gift of the aforementioned ladies and decided to construct the building in question within the city limits. Referring to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government, he pointed out that the plinth area of the proposed building is 1542.28 square meters, which is about 1/3rd of an acre and there would be sufficient space for even future development. He further contended that Sy.No.264 is situated within the town and was most convenient for the citizen. The land bearing Sy.No.696 is at a distance of 6 kms from the town and consists of black cotton soil, which is unsuitable for construction of buildings. In substance, he argued that the decision of the State Government to shift the place of construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha is not bona fide, but for extraneous reasons and at the instance of 7th respondent and prayed that, by exercising power of judicial review, this Court may set aside the said decision.
8
5. Mr. Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned advocate general, defending the action of the Government submitted that, it is true that land measuring 5 acres was gifted in favour of the Government for construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha. Government have examined the proposal from various angles and took a final decision to construct the building in a land belonging to the Government Seed Farm. He submitted that the decision was taken by the highest executive of the State, that is, the Chief Minister in consultation with the Revenue Minister. He submitted that the decisions touching upon the improvements and developments in the State are taken in the best interest of the citizens', considering various aspects and ground realities. Land bearing Sy.No.696 belongs to the State Government and presently under the control of agricultural department. It measures about 22 acres. Though it is at a distance of 6 kms, it is well connected by road. There is good transport facility from the town. Keeping in view the over all public interest, 9 the State Government have decided to construct the Mini Vidhana Soudha in the land bearing Sy.No.696.
6. Learned advocate general, further, argued that the first petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru and a name-lender. He, also, adverted to various inter-office correspondences to support his argument that the Government have carefully considered the pros and cons of the proposal. He made particular reference to the letter written by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi to the Government dated January 8, 2015, wherein, the Commissioner has recommended the Seed Farm Land bearing Sy.No.696. In substance, he contended that the Government were throughout considering alternative proposals, but finally decided in favour of Sy.No.696.
7. Refuting the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Seed Farm Land consists of black cotton soil, he submitted that the entire Aland Taluk has only black 10 cotton soil and therefore it makes no difference whether the construction is made either in Sy.No.264 or Sy.No.696. He, further, submitted that there is no iota of mala fide or intention attributable to the decision of the Government. Before concluding his arguments, he submitted that the Government are prepared to re-consider the decision if the petitioners could make available 15 to 20 acres of land in the nearby vicinity.
8. On merits, he submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated April 3, 2017, warranting any interference and accordingly prayed for dismissal of petitioners' prayer for review of the said order.
9. Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel, also, argued in similar lines as the learned advocate general. He submitted that the 7th respondent is an elected member of the assembly and has made his recommendations in the best interest of his constituency. He pointed out that the 11 recommendation is for construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha in the land belonging to the Government. Therefore, there is no personal interest of the 7th respondent.
10. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused material papers.
11. The issue involved in the petition is the location of Mini Vidhana Soudha. Records disclose that 5 acres of land was donated by two ladies for the construction of the said building. Correspondence between the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi, who is the Divisional Revenue head and the Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department, shows that the Regional Commissioner had proposed construction in Sy.No.696 as early as in January 2015. The gift deed is executed in the month of October, 2015.
12
12. We are convinced that both locations were under consideration by the Government for the construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha. Between the two, Government have chosen Sy.No.696 belonging to the Government Seed Farm with the Chief Minister recording his approval in consultation with the Revenue Minister. It is fairly well-settled that the Courts shall not interfere with policy matters and substitute their opinion merely because an alternative view was possible. It may be profitable to record the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf in the case of BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333, wherein it is held as follows:
"46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical".13
13. We see no legal infirmity in the decision making process by the Government. Further, we find no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated April 3, 2017.
14. Resultantly, this review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
15. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE cp*