Karnataka High Court
Y Ananthapadmanabha Bhatt vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 February, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
W. P. Nos.44841/2011(LB-RES)
BETWEEN :
Y ANANTHAPADMANABHA BHATT
S/O Y VENKATAKRISHNA BHATT
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/O GOLIYANGADI HILIYANZ VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT,
P.O BELVE 576 212 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VYASA RAO K S, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT
UDUPI-576 101
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
KUNDAPUR 576 201
3. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
OF BELVE, BY TIS SECRETARY
BELVE VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRIC 576 212
4. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH OF AVERSE
BY ITS SECRETARY,
AVERSE VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI
UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101
2
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH
UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT 576 101
7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT 576 101
8. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH KUNDAPURA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT 576 201
9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT 576 101
10. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD NO.2 SUB DIVISION,
KUNDAPURA,
SOMESHWARA KOTESHWARA
ROAD- 576 201
11. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD NO 1, SUB DIVISION UDUPI
KOTA GOLIYANGADI ROAD 576 101
12. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT 576 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N B VISHWANATH, AGA. FOR R1, 2, 5 & R9-12
SRI ASHOK N NAYAK, ADV. FOR R3, 4 & R6-8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO
PREVENT THE PARKING OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLES
ON THE ROAD MARGIN IN SY.NO.67/1 OF BELVE VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK AND SY.NO.77/1 OF HILIYANA VILLAGE IN
UDUPI TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
3
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus requiring the respondents to prevent the parking of public transport vehicles on the road margin in Sy.No.67/1 of Belve village, Kundapur Taluk and Sy.No.77/1 of Hiliyana Village in Udupi Taluk.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.160/4, Hilyana village, which is adjacent to the road margins in Sy.No.67/1 of Belve village in Kundapur Taluk and Sy.No.77/1 of Hiliyana Village, Udupi Taluk. The petitioner has his house and also certain non-residential buildings in his property. The grievance of the petitioner is that to the eastern side of his property, Sy.No.67/1 is situate which is a State Highway between Virajpet and Byndoor. The heavy vehicles passing in the said road are parked in front of the petitioner's property though the same is not a designated parking area. From the activities of the drivers of the vehicles and the persons travelling in the vehicles in throwing waste and also causing nuisance dust and air pollution, the petitioner 4 being annoyed had made several representations to all the authorities concerned.
3. The representation at Annexure-B would indicate that as far back as on 18.09.2002, the petitioner has made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner putting forth his grievance. Thereafter the authorities no doubt have proceeded to certain extent. The Grama Panchayat in the resolution passed by them have also taken note of the difficulty being faced by the petitioner and on 17.02.2006 resolved with regard to the alternate place being identified for the purpose of shifting the parking area. Subsequent thereto, the communications have been addressed to and fro between the Panchayath, Tahsildar and the Public Works Department. In such process, though they have sought to identify certain lands which is in Sy.No.67/1 but according to the respondents being away from the property of the petitioner, that was also sought to be considered as an alternate place for creating parking area. Despite certain survey said to have been made and a sketch said to have been dispatched, no action whatsoever has been taken. In this regard, 5 correspondences at Annexures-AA and AC would also be relevant. In such situation, the petitioner being exasperated by the inaction of the respondents for more than a decade is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus.
4. In this petition also, the contention on behalf of the respondents is with regard to the efforts being put forth by them to identify an appropriate place and thereafter to see that the vehicles would be parked in such place so as to remove nuisance being caused to the petitioner. In such circumstance, having noticed that more than a decade has passed after the petitioner has addressed the first communication to the Deputy Commissioner and there has been no efforts whatsoever and since the buck is being passed from one department to another and from one authority to another, I am of the opinion that an appropriate direction requires to be issued in the instant case.
5. It is seen that the Superintendent of Police, Udupi Taluk, is impleaded as respondent No.9. Since the 6 grievance in the petition is with regard to the unauthorized parking in front of the property belonging to the petitioner resulting in nuisance, at the outset, the said respondent through his subordinates would have to regulate the parking. Thereafter, it would be open for respondent No.9 to identify a place which is suitable for parking and regulate the same accordingly or in the alternative, if any other alternate space is required from any other authorities viz., Panchayat, P.W.D. or any other department, the efforts shall be put in by respondent No.9 to secure such land. Until such alternate land is secured, respondent No.9 shall make alternate arrangement for parking at any other place by removing the nuisance being caused to the petitioner.
6. To enable this to be achieved, the petitioner shall now file a copy of this order along with one set of writ papers including Annexures with respondent No.9 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondent No.9 through his subordinate officers as a first step shall take steps to see that the parking in front of the petitioner's property is 7 stopped and removed to any alternate place of convenience within four weeks from the date on which the order is furnished. Thereafter all efforts shall be made to identify an appropriate parking place to the satisfaction of all in an expeditious manner.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms