Karnataka High Court
M S Ramaiah City Residents' Welfare vs Commissioner on 3 November, 2022
-1-
WP No. 16713 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16713 OF 2016 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M S RAMAIAH CITY RESIDENTS' WELFARE
ASSOCIATION (REGD),
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
M.S. RAMAIAH CITY,
JP NAGAR, 8TH PHASE
BENGALURU - 560076.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI. K.P. GIRISH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. BAHVANA G K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka 1. COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
CORPORATION CIRCLE,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560002.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION,
AMRUTH NAGARA,
-2-
WP No. 16713 of 2016
SOUDAMIN LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ANJANAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BBMP, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
6TH CROSS, RBI LAYOUT,
KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078,
4. SRI K N SHARATH BABU
S/O D K NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
MEMBER OF THE SRI SHIRDI
SAI DHARSHANAM TRUST ®
CA NO.2, M S RAMAIAH SOUTH CITY
NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR
KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3;
SRI HARISH H. V., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR
DEMOLITION OF THE COMPOUND WALL AND ALLEGED
ENCROACHMENT OF FOOTPATH SURROUNDING M.S.RAMAIAH
CITY LAYOUT SOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SL.NO.12 IN TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 16713 of 2016
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the tender proceedings initiated by the respondents as per tender notification dated 23.02.2016 vide Annexure-F, in respect of Sl.No.12 of the notification and also sought for quashing the notice dated 21.03.2016 produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner which is a registered Welfare Association, formed residential layout at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in an extent of 32 acres of land and the layout has been approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, hereinafter referred to as "BDA"). After the project was implemented, sites have been released accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that the land earmarked for the purpose of civic amenity has been maintained by the petitioner-Association in terms of the layout plan approved by BDA and there are two civic -4- WP No. 16713 of 2016 amenity sites in the layout. It is further stated in the writ petition that one civic amenity site was granted to the petitioner-Association, later came to be cancelled, however, the same was illegally allotted to Sri Shirdi Sai Devasthana Trust represented by Sri K.N. Gurumurthy. Since the said allotment was not made in accordance with law, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta by the petitioner-Association and by letter dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-C), Lokayuktha informed the petitioner-Association regarding the action taken. As the petitioner-Association has made interference with regard to allotment of Civic amenity site, Sri K.N.Gurumurthy, has filed complaints before Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike (BBMP), BDA and Lokayuktha to take action against the petitioner-Association. It is further stated in the writ petition that, except one main road, there is no other public road is formed in the layout. Petitioner-Association has also enclosed the copy of the Comprehensive Development Plan as per Annexure-D to -5- WP No. 16713 of 2016 the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the respondent-BBMP has taken decision to demolish compound wall, and as such, the petitioner has filed WP No.6561/2015, and this Court, by order dated 29.10.2015, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-BBMP to take action by following the due process of law. Pursuant to same, the respondent-BBMP has issued the short-term tender dated 23.02.2016 Annexure-F to the writ petition, whereby, item No.12 of the notification is relating to demolishing of compound wall and removal of footpath encroachment in the petitioner-Association layout. Pursuant to the same, the respondent-BBMP has issued notice dated 21.03.2016, whereby, the respondent-BBMP directed the petitioner-Association to remove the gates/obstructions in the layout. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Association has approached this Court by challenging the impugned notification dated 23.02.2016 inter alia notice dated 21.03.2016 in this writ petition.
-6-WP No. 16713 of 2016
3. I have heard Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt Bhavana G.K., for the petitioner and Sri H.Devendrappa learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for the intervener.
4. Sri G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association invited the attention of the court to the CDP-Revised Master Plan produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition, as well as the order passed by this Court in WP No.6561 of 2015 (Annexure-G) and argued that this Court has directed the respondent-BBMP to take decision in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner-Association and any such decision to be taken by the authorities should be only after considering the factual aspects of the case. He also invited the attention of the Court to short-term tender notification dated 23.02.2016 and argued that said tender notification has been issued -7- WP No. 16713 of 2016 contrary to the direction issued by this Court in WP No.6561 of 2015 and therefore, the impugned notice itself would indicate that the respondent-BBMP had taken decision to remove the compound wall surrounding the layout without affording an opportunity to the petitioner- Association and also without following due process of law. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the impugned tender notification.
5. Per contra, Sri Harish H.V., learned Advocate for intervenor/ respondent No.4, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No.32 of 2021 decided on 15.03.2015 and argued that in view of putting up the compound wall in the layout, the general public cannot enter into the roads which are extended next to the compound wall and therefore, the same has caused inconvenience to the public to make use of the road, on account of putting up of the compound wall by -8- WP No. 16713 of 2016 the petitioner-Association and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
6. Sri. H. Devendrappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-BBMP.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the layout has been formed by the petitioner-Association and same has been approved by the BDA in terms of the revised master plan Annexure-D to the writ petition. However, only contention of the respondent-BBMP is with regard to compound wall raised by the petitioner-Association despite the petitioner- Association having consented for allotment of civic amenity sites for the public. In the background of these aspects, I have carefully considered the order passed in WP No.6561 of 2015 wherein on the apprehension made by the petitioner-Association, this court has directed the -9- WP No. 16713 of 2016 respondent-BBMP to take action after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner-Association and taking of any such action should be by following due process of law. Having examined the writ papers, it could be seen that the respondent-BBMP has not conducted spot inspection and had taken the decision without affording an opportunity to the petitioner- Association. By looking into the tender notification dated 23.02.2016 it is reflected that tender has been invited to remove footpath encroachment so also for demolishing the compound wall in M.S. Ramaiah City Layout. The said tender notification to demolish the compound wall is in derogation of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6561 of 2015 since the respondent-BBMP has not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- Association nor conducted any spot inspection and the said act is also contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Item No.12 of tender notification dated 23.02.2016 relates to demolition of compound wall
- 10 -
WP No. 16713 of 2016is liable to be quashed on account of the fact that the said notification has been issued by respondent-BBMP without taking any decision with regard to demolishing of compound wall in furtherance of the order of this Court. Therefore, the same is an afterthought and cannot be considered in the eye of law and hence calls for interference. However, in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the intervener that compound wall is causing inconvenience to the general public, the notice dated 21.03.2016 be construed as show-cause notice to the petitioner-Association and if the petitioner-Association is so aggrieved by the said notice, shall make a reply to the said notice to respondent-BBMP and upon reply given by the petitioner-Association, the respondent-BBMP shall consider the same in accordance with law. In view of the observations made above, as the said notice has been issued after issuance of the short-term tender notification dated 23.02.2016, and Item No.12 of the tender notification having been
- 11 -
WP No. 16713 of 2016quashed, considering the length of time elapsed from the date of Notice to the petitioner-Association, I am of the view that, Notice dated 21.03.2016 renders itself redundant and accordingly notice dated 21.03.2016 be consider as show-cause notice to the petitioner- Association. However, in the event if respondent-BBMP finds that there is obstruction for the general public while using road located in the midst of M.S. Ramaiah City Layout in question, action be taken by the respondent- BBMP, if so advised, in accordance with law. All contentions raised in the petition are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25