Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M P Sudhakar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2024

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:22726
                                                    WP No. 16721 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 16721 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
                 BETWEEN:

                 SRI M P SUDHAKAR
                 S/O LATE PAPAIAH
                 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                 SHRI MARUTHI NILAYA, BEHIND GRT JEWELLERS
                 MARATHAHALLI
                 BENGALURU 560037
                                                          ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. K.B.S. MANIAN A/W SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATES)

                 AND:
                 1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                      HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                      DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
Digitally signed
by                    BENGALURU 560001
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH   2.   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             J C ROAD, BENGALURU 560001
                      REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

                 3.   THE HEALTH OFFICER
                      BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
                      MAHADEVAPURA
                      BENGALURU 560048

                 4.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                      MARATHALLI POLICE STATION
                            -2-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC:22726
                                 WP No. 16721 of 2023




     MARATHALLI
     BENGALURU 560037

5.   SMT. CHARVI C. REDDY
     D/O P. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/O LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
     MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037.

06. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
    MINISTRY OF POWER
    SHRAM SHAKI BHAWAN,
    RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI
    REP BY SECRETARY


07. BESCOM DEPARTMENT
    O/O ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE
    BANGALORE SOUTH
    NO.95, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI BAZAR
    MAIN ROAD, ABOVE CAFÉ COFFEE DAY
    BASAVANAGUDI
    BANGALORE-560004
    REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

08. KARNATAKA STATE FIRE
    AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
    REP BY DIRECTOR GENERAL
    OF POLICE AND DIRECTOR
    #1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD
    HERMIT COLONY
    SIVANCHETHI GARDENS
    BANGALORE-560042

09. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    DISTRICT COMPLEX
    K G ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT
                            -3-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:22726
                                    WP No. 16721 of 2023




    REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
    SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA
    BANGALORE-560009.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R1, R4, R8 & R9;
    SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
    SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R5
    SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R6
    SRI. T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT    THE   RESPONDENTS     TO  CONSIDER     THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 6.6.2023 A COPY
OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND B TO
DISPOSE OF THE SAME EXPEDITIOUSLY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner had initially filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, more particularly, the Officers of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to consider the representations given by the petitioner at Annexures 'A', 'A1' and 'B'. As is evident from Annexures 'A', 'A1' and 'B', the petitioner is complaining against the fifth respondent who is a neighbor, that the fifth respondent is carrying -4- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 on activities of charging large scale lithium battery by setting up a warehouse in the middle of a residential area. It is contended that in terms of the Comprehensive Development Plan RMP 2015 and the Zoning Regulations, the area in question falls within Ring-II. It is contended that the Zoning Regulations do not permit establishment of a commercial establishment within Ring-I, Ring-II, Ring-III, if the road abutting the site is measuring less than 40 ft. An interim order was passed by this Court on 19.12.2023 after hearing the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 that prima facie it is clear that since the premises falls within the Ring Road-II and the width of the road is about 25 ft., it was impermissible for the fifth respondent to have established a commercial unit therein. Accordingly, the fifth respondent was restrained from carrying out any commercial activity -5- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 including battery charging and swapping facility in the subject premises until the next date of hearing.

2. However, the fifth respondent took up the interim order before the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1609/2023, by order dated 28.12.2023 modified the order dated 19.12.2023 while permitting the fifth respondent herein to carry on the swapping station, however subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment in I.A.No.1/2024 seeking to amend the writ petition and more particularly, add a prayer seeking directions to shut down the commercial activity carried on by the fifth respondent. Objections have been filed by the fifth respondent to the application for amendment.

3. During the course of these proceedings in terms of the directions issued by this Court, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 respondent-BBMP has placed before this Court along with a memo dated 25.11.2023 the guidelines/Standard Operating Procedures for establishment of charging stations. In fact, what has been placed on record is amendments in Model Building Bye-laws (MBBL-2016) for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure prescribed by the Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, February 2019. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that the prescription of the amendments made by the Government of India will be implemented mutatis mutandis.

4. The respondent-BBMP has also filed a memo dated 19.12.2023 furnishing the details of the implementing authority. It is stated in the memo that in terms of the notification issued by the Union of India in the year 2018, the co-ordinating agency -7- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 would be the local Electric Supply Companies who will oversee the operations of the Battery Stations. It is stated that the respondent-BBMP would be constrained and obliged to abide by the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the matter of public/private charging stations. It is therefore stated that the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company and the Explosives Inspectorate and the Electrical Inspectorate are the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner.

5. During the course of the arguments, this Court finds that nothing is placed on record by the fifth respondent as to whether he has obtained building licence and sanction plan from the respondent-BBMP, which is admittedly the local body who is competent to issue such building licence and sanction plan. This Court finds that the Zonal Regulations although provide for usage of a building in a Residential Main -8- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 Zone and Residential Mixed Zone for certain other activities including commercial activities, nevertheless, such ancillary use is allowable upto 20% of the total built-up area or 50 sq.m. whichever is lower, only in plots abutting roads having width 12m or more insofar as Residential Main Zone is concerned and insofar as Residential Mixed zone is concerned, ancillary use is allowable upto 30% of the total built-up area if the plot size is more than 1000 sq. m. having a frontage of 10m or more and abutting road is more than 18m width.

6. Having regard to some of the requirements of law as observed hereinabove, the respondent-BBMP, more particularly, the Assistant Director of Town Planning, being the competent authority to supervise the implementation of the building bye-laws of the BBMP and the Health Officer of the BBMP, -9- NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 Mahadevapura are required to look into the representations given by the petitioner.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Mahadevapura and the Health Officer, Mahadevapura, to look into the representations given by the petitioner. At the same time, opportunity should also be given to the fifth respondent to place all material to show that the establishment of the commercial unit on the property in question fulfills all the requirements of law including the Zonal Regulations and the building bye-laws. Firstly, the Assistant Director of Town Planning is required to call for any information from the fifth respondent as to whether he has obtained building licence and sanction plan to put up the structure on the property in question. If no such permission is obtained by the fifth respondent, then the competent authority shall

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:22726 WP No. 16721 of 2023 proceed to take action in accordance with law, more particularly, Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending IAs. shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE JT/-

CT: JL