Karnataka High Court
H. Pramod S/O H P Jayadevappa vs Government Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, A.S.Bopanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WP Nos.12381-12382/2013(GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN
1. H. PRAMOD
S/O H P JAYADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
H 217, PAVAMANA NILAYA
4TH BLOCK, 2ND PHASE
5TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE 560085
2. G K C REDDY
S/O G V KIRSHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO 249, 7TH MAIN
KSRTC LAYOUT II PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE 560078
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.VIVEK A R, ADV.)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS THE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
-2-
3. HOME DEPARTMENT
THE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
4. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE
REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
BBMP OFFICE BUILDING
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.R.DEVDAS, AGA )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE G.O ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATED 02.02.2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. The petitioners, claiming to be Social Workers, have approached this Court in public interest with the prayer to quash the Government Order dated 02.02.2013, whereby the State Government has superceded all orders and notifications issued with regard to the powers and functions of the Special Task Force called 'the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force' (for short 'the BMTF'), empowering it to enquire into the offences -3- pertaining to Government land and properties under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Inam Abolition Acts; the BMRDA Act, 1985 and Karnataka SC/ST(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. By the same impugned order, it is directed that the BMTF can register a case and proceed with investigation of the case, if the facts contained in the case disclose the offences under the Special Acts mentioned in the earlier G.O.No.UDD 247 MNU 1995 dated 19.03.1996 and other specified enactments, read with or without those relevant under the Indian Penal Code and the Karnataka Police Act. If the complaint discloses commission of offences only under the Indian Penal Code or under the Karnataka Police Act, then it would not be competent for the BMTF to proceed with the investigation thereof, according to the impugned order.
2. According to the petitioners, the BMTF was performing its functions and achieving great success since the year 1996 and more than 390 acres of land worth Rs.1100 crores were recovered. The BMTF was not only recovering Government property that was encroached by persons with vested interests, but was also instituting prosecution against such -4- government officers belonging to the Government Departments, who had been colluding with private parties and causing loss to the exchequer. It is alleged that, when BMTF became proactive in achieving its objectives by initiating proceedings against some of the Ministers and Members of Legislative Assembly, the State Government had tried to curb the activities of BMTF by transferring its Chief. With that backdrop, it is contended by the petitioners that the impugned order is made with an intent to shield the corrupt officers. It is also contended that the power of BMTF to investigate into accusations and several laws were being withdrawn and the jurisdiction of BMTF was being curtailed without any reasonable cause.
3. Not only that the background and reasons for issuing the impugned order are expressly related in the impugned order itself, but it is stated in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State that the BMTF was originally constituted with the objective of effective investigation and adjudication of offences, prosecution of the persons indulging in unauthorized occupation of government properties and for that purpose, it had been declared as a 'Police Station' to enable registration -5- and investigation of cases. The newly created BMTF was under the administrative control of Urban Development Department and the overall supervision and control of the Secretary of that Department. In the year 2001, the jurisdiction of BMTF was extended to the areas of Malur Taluk of Kolar District and by order dated 02.09.2002, it was declared as new Police Stations to cover all the officers under the BMTF; whereas in the year 2004, the area under BMTF was extended to cover the Bangalore Metropolitan Infrastructure Corridor Planning Authority (BMICPA); and in the year 2011, the Government further extended jurisdiction of BMTF to cover areas coming under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). It is submitted for the respondent that there was extensive overlapping of jurisdiction in respect of the same offences and when the performance of BMTF was examined, it was revealed that BMTF had registered 245 cases since its inception, filed charge sheets only in 65 cases and only one case had ended in conviction. It was noted by the Government that in almost all the cases registered by BMTF, various courts including this Court had directed stay of the proceedings on the ground of want of power, authority and jurisdiction. Recently, in WP -6- No.12278/2007, the Government was directed to hold a meeting of all the departments concerned and sort out certain overlapping powers. It was also noticed by the Government that investigation in majority of cases was being conducted by the BMTF only for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and not under the Special Acts pertaining to protection of Government lands and properties. It was for these reasons and considering the report of Dr.Ravindra Committee that the impugned order was made with the necessary clarification. Thus, after due application of mind and after obtaining opinion of the Learned Advocate General, the Government was making a conscious effort to remove the anomalies created by overlapping of jurisdiction and to protect the actions of BMTF from being questioned for want of express authority under law.
It is clarified by the State Government in writing that the powers of BMTF were not being taken away by the impugned order and the Government servants were not sought to be protected as alleged by the petitioners. It is clarified that, the BMTF can register a case and proceed with the investigation if the facts contained in the complaint disclose the offence under the Special Acts with or without the -7- allegation of commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code. In any case, the powers to be conferred on the BMTF was a considered decision and a policy matter vesting with the Government and in the absence of any illegality being even alleged, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order, according to the submission.
4. After perusal of the statement of objections and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it was clear and fairly conceded on behalf of the petitioners that the powers of the BMTF were not sought to be curtailed by the impugned order, but infact, clarified with the condition that if the complaint discloses commission of offences only under the Indian Penal Code or the Karnataka Police Act, it would not be competent for the BMTF to proceed with the investigation thereof. Barring that, there is no prohibition or restriction on BMTF against detection or investigation of any offences under the specified enactments or against implication of any government officer if he were found to be involved in the commission of the alleged offence.
-8-
5. In view of these submissions and clarifications, the petitions are not required to be entertained and infact, they are not pressed for any further orders. Accordingly, they are disposed along with the interim application made therein, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv