Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru Residents Association vs M/S.Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation ... on 4 January, 2016
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.36785-786 OF 2014(GM-RES/PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. BENGALURU RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
CONFEDERATION ENSEMBLE (BRACE)
A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960,
NA CHAMBERS, #3J,
7TH 'C' MAIN , 3RD CROSS,
KORAMANGALA 3RD BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
2. CITIZENS ACTION FORUM
A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE KARNATAKA
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.372, 1ST FLOOR,
MK PUTTALINGAIAH ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
2
3. NAMMA BENGALURU FOUNDATION
A REGISTERED PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.3J, NA CHAMBERS,
7TH 'C' MAIN , 3RD CROSS,
KORAMANGALA 3RD BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
4. MR.ANAND SIRUR
S/O LATE MR.PRABHAKAR S.SIRUR
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
RESIDING AT
106, KALPATARU APARTMENTS,
13TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
5. MR.V.N.RAMASWAMI
S/O LATE MR.H.V.NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OLD,
RESIDING AT NO.41, 15TH CROSS ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
6. MR.BELUR KESHAVA IYENGAR SHAMANA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.BELUR KESHAVA IYENGAR
RESIDING AT NO.32/3, 11TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003. ... PETITIONERS
(BY DR.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR
MS.NIDHISHREE B.V., ADVOCATES)
3
AND:
1. M/S.BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. M/S.MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.41, VITTAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. M/S.ABHISHEK DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT:
NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. M/S.HAMARA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
NR SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
6. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4
7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD,
MS BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
8. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS,
4TH FLOOR, DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERS
OFFICE COMPLEX,
SUBHASHNAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 023
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
9. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERS OFFICE COMPLEX,
SUBHASHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 023.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4
SRI K.N.PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI R.DEVADAS, PRL.GA FOR R6
SRI N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9
R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2009
(ANNEXURE-E) BETWEEN THE R1 & R2. DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES, MORE PARTICULARLY R1 &
R6 TO R9 TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONERS DATED 18.3.2014 (ANNEXURE-Z) AND TO
TAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION AGAINST THE R2 TO R4
AND ALL DELINQUENT STATE OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN
5
THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, Acting Chief Justice, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging an agreement dated October 19, 2010, between the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Admittedly, the property in question belonged to the National Textile Corporation. The property was put to sale and it was sold to a private developer in Bengaluru.
3. The property in question was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), for the benefit of Bengaluru Metro Railway Corporation Limited (BMRCL).
4. The area was earmarked for the purpose of construction of a Metro Railway Station. Tenders were 6 floated seeking offers for construction of the Metro Railway Station, but things could not mature.
5. In the meantime, a writ proceeding was initiated before this Court challenging the acquisition and this Court granted stay of the operation of the order of acquisition.
6. Therefore, the construction of the Metro Railway Station was stalled and nothing could be developed any further.
7. In such a situation, the matter was referred to Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited. It went into the matter and submitted a report. The proposal of joint venture was approved, as it was proved to be viable. It was recorded that the Metro Railway would be benefited inasmuch as Metro Railway Station would be constructed free of cost; no land acquisition cost was payable; litigation for compensation 7 could be avoided; year on year revenue share from the commercial tower would be available to the Metro Railway.
8. Thereafter, the aforementioned agreement was entered into. The agreement was challenged in the year 2014, although the writ petitioners were aware of the agreement in the year 2009.
9. It is admitted that the Metro Railway Station could not be constructed because of the litigation. To buy peace and expedite the matter, a decision was taken at the apex level, in consultation with the Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited, to enter into an agreement on 'win-win situation for both the parties'. It is a policy decision taken by the authorities.
10. Dr.Aditya Sondhi, learned senior advocate, was critical in arguing that in the process, revenue is lost to the Bengaluru Metro Railway Corporation Limited. 8
11. We have perused the reports of the Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited. We do not think that the decision of the authorities in entering into the agreement was unjust. In the fact situation, no intervention is warranted to substitute our decision. We do not find any merit in these writ petitions.
12. The writ petitions are dismissed.
13. We make no order as to cost.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE JJ