Karnataka High Court
B.R. Gururaj vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2023
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.9002/2023 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOs.5430/2023, 10092/2023,
10224/2023, 11589/2023 (LB-BMP)
IN W.P. NO. 9002/2023
BETWEEN
1 . B.R.GURURAJ
S/O B. RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO 7,
3RD FLOOR,
GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
2 . MRS. REKHA GURURAJ
W/O B. R. GURURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.7
3RD FLOOR, BHERU MANSION,
GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE- 560004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. NATARAJA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
ADDRESS AT N. R. SQUARE
BENGALURU -560002.
3. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORTATION
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
ADDRESS AT BMTC, TTMC, B BLOCK
4TH FLOOR, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560027.
4. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO.428-A, VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU- 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4
SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT.01.04.2023 ANNX-C AND
DIRECTION TO REVISE THE GANDHI BAZAR PEDESTRIANISATION
PLAN AS PER THE REPRESENTATION 'C' BY DELETING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STREET SHOPS AND PROVIDING THE PARKING
FACILITY ON BOTH SIDES AS EARLIER AND ETC.
-3-
IN W.P. NO. 5430/2023
BETWEEN
1. BASAVANAGUDI VARTAKARA MANDALI
AN UNREGISTERED ASSOCIATION
OF TRADERS
ADDRESS AT. NO.43,
GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. L. VANAJA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O VENKATESH M
R/AT 01, DATTATREYA ROAD,
OPP. TO NATIONAL CO-OP BANK,
GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560004.
3. B.N. UPENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O A NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT 74/93,
HB SAMAJA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
4. P. SUDHINDRA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O B.N. PRAHLADA RAO
NO.125, GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560004.
5. ANAND K L
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-4-
S/O LATE SRI K.V. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
R/AT 23/36, GOVINDAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
6. RAGHAVENDRA M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LT SRI JANARDHANA RAO M
R/AT NO 26, DVG ROAD
BUGLE ROCK ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU -560004.
7. K N SUDHEENDRA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O K T NARAYANA RAO
R/AT NO 72
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE- 560004.
8. ARCHANA NAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O NAVEEN B R
R/AT NO 77/8
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
9. T P MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O T P PRAHALAD RAO
R/AT NO 20
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
10 . B S KESHAVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
-5-
S/O SHAMA RAO
R/AT PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
11 . VENAKATESH K V
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI K VASUDEVA RAO
R/AT FLAT NO 102
NO 6, PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE- 560004.
12 . K N GURURAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA RAO K.T.
R/AT NO 72/2
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
13 . SHIVA PANCHASKARY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O SHIVANNA
R/AT NO 20
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
14 . V PUNYAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O S M SRINIVASAN
R/AT NO 69, SHRAVAN
PUTTANNA ROAD
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE -560004.
-6-
15 . V S BHARDWAJ
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO 7
BUGLE ROACK ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU- 560004.
16 . C.M.SOMASUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI NANJUNDA RAO
R/AT 122 AND 123,
GANDHI BAZAR
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
17 . PRAKASH K
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O K.JEEVANNA
R/AT 213, D BLOCK,
GARADI APTS,
K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
18 . TS HARI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.T.SHIVARAM
NO.1/22, BUGLE ROCK ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
19 . TS SURESH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.T.SHIVARAM
R/AT OLD 1/22 (NEW NO.42),
KALAPPA BLOCK,
BUGLE ROACK ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
-7-
20 . LEELA NARASIMHAN
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT 7/1, BUGLE ROCK ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
21 . B.SHANTHILAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O S.BHAVARILAL JAIN
R/AT NO.131, GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
22 . SHEELA M
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O SRI GURUPRASAD R.K
R/AT NO.26/1,
BUGLE ROCK ROAD,
DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
23 . R ARJUN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRAN,
R/AT JAYA NIVAS,
PRANAVA RESIDENTY NO.6,
BUGLE ROCK ROAD.
24 . SREEKANTH PADAKI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.J. VASUDEVA MURTHY,
R/AT NO.2, SREE VASUDEVA NILAYA,
OPP. TO BASAVANAGUDI STREET SANGHA,
PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560004.
25 . N B SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE H K NEMIRAJAIAH,
-8-
R/AT NO.41,
GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
26 . D A NIKHIL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O AMARANATH D,
R/AT NO.76,
GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560004.
27 . A ANAND
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O G R ANNASWAMY RAO,
R/AT NO.23/1, HB SAMAJA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
28 . K V SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O VASUDEVA BHAT K V,
R/AT NO.20, PUTTANA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
29 . DHARENESH KUMAR A V
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O A N VAJRANADHAIAH,
R/AT NO.7,
UTTARADHI MUTT ROAD,
SHANKARPURAM,
BENGALURU-560004.
30 . L GUNDU RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE L.S. VENKOBA RAO,
-9-
R/AT 146, KALAKRUTI BUILDING,
DVG ROAD, GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
31 . KAVITHA N MALVE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O M N MURTHY,
R/AT NO. 15,
DATTATREYA CROSS ROAD,
GANDHI BAZAAR,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
32 . CHAGANLAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O PUKHRAJ JAIN,
R/AT NO.18, DVG ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KIRAN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
R/AT VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
ADDRESS AT N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002
3. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
LAND TRANSPORTATION
-10-
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
ADDRESS AT BMTC TTMC, B BLOCK,
4TH FLOOR, KH ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560027
4. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ROOM NO. 428-A, VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
5. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
ADDRESS AT. BBMP HEAD OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, N.R. ROAD,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4
SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PLAN OF RESPONDENT-AUTHORITIES TO
PEDESTRIANIZE GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD BASED ON THE
STUDY CONDUCTED BY R3 AT ANNEXURE-D AND CANCELL ALL
RELEVANT CONTRACTS OR COMPONENTS THEREOF AWARDED TO
SUB-CONTRACTORS AND TENDER NOTIFICATIONS RELEASED BY
THE RESPONDENT-AUTHORITIES RELATED TO THE WIDENING OF
FOOTPATHS AND/OR RELAYING OF FOOTPATH AND/OR
PEDESTRIANIZING GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD AND ETC.
-11-
IN W.P. NO. 10092/2023
BETWEEN
SRI. L. GUNDU RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. L. S. VENKOBA RAO
R/AT NO 146, DR. D. V .G. ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU- 560004.
ALSO PROPRIETOR OF
M/S LALE FASHIONS
AT NO.56, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU -560001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BMTC, TTMC B BLOCK,
4TH FLOOR, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 & R3
SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-12-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INCREASE THE
WIDTH OF THE FOOTPATH CONTRARY TO THE INDIA ROADS
CONGRESS GUIDELINES ON THE GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS
SHOP PREMISES BY PUTTING UP HAWKER/STREET VENDORS
SHOPS THERE BY AFFECTS HIS RIGHTS TO LIVELIHOOD AS PER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 10224/2023
BETWEEN
SRI. VENKATESWARA SWEET MEAT STALL
NO.115, 116, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI V.C.HARIPRASAD,
S/O SRI V.K.CHOODANATH SETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASASOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DIRECTORATE OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
BMTC, TTMC B BLOCK,
-13-
4TH FLOOR, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-56027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 & R3
SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS
TO THE RESPONDENT NOT TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE
FOOTPATH CONTRARY TO THE INDIA ROADS CONGRESS
GUIDELINES ON THE GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGLAURU IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS
SHOP PREMISES BY PUTTING UP HAWKER/STREET VENDORS
SHOPS THEREBY AFFECTS THEIR RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AS PER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 11589/2023
BETWEEN
1. R. PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O RAMALINGA RAJU,
NO 9, LINGARAJU COMPLEX,
GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE- 560004.
2. A. V. DHARANESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE VAJRANABHAIAH,
PARTNER M/S LAKSHMI ASSOCIATES
NO 10, GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE- 560004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-14-
REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
R/T VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
ADDRESS AT N. R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU -560002.
3. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN LAND TRANSPORTATION
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
ADDRESS AT BMTC TTMC, B-BLOCK,
4TH FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560027.
4. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO 428-A VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU- 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 & R3
SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT/
DIRECTIONS TO R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD
26.04.2023 ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECTION TO REVISE THE GANDHI
BAZAR PEDESTRIANISATION PLAN AS PER THE REPRESENTATION
'C' BY DELETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET SHOPS AND
PROVIDING THE PARKING FACILITY ON BOTH SIDES AS EARLIER
AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 09.06.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-15-
COMMON ORDER
These batch of writ petitions are concerning modernization of Gandhibazar main road, one of the popular commercial roads in Bengaluru city. Since the grievances of the petitioners are common and is directed against the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP', for short), these matters were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The writ petitioners being residents/shop owners/ association of shop owners have raised various grievances and grounds to contend that the proposed plan to restructure the Gandhibazar main road, and the footpath should not be permitted. The grounds inter alia are that the width of the carriageway cannot be reduced, contrary to the provisions of the Indian Road Congress; that the proposed plan to widen the footpath and reduce the carriageway is not only contrary -16- to the provisions of the Indian Road Congress but also unscientific, not eco-friendly, uneconomical, unviable and unnecessary; the proposed plan affects the livelihood of the petitioners and whereas gives a premium to the street vendors, who have been squatting on the footpaths; the proposed plan of widening and redoing of the footpaths would affect the ingress and egress of the residences and shop establishments of the petitioners to the main road, etc.
3. In order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the learned Counsels for the petitioners have argued that the entire plan was done without proper consultation and disregarding the objections raised at the hands of the petitioners and other occupants of the shops and establishments of Gandhibazar main road. Several documents have been furnished to show that even earlier there was a proposal made by the BBMP to evict the street vendors, more particularly, the flower and vegetable vendors who were occupying a portion of the footpath in a limited area. -17- However, when several objections were raised in the matter of providing permanent structures for the benefit of street vendors, the objections were sustained and the plan to widen the footpath and making provision for the street vendors was withdrawn.
4. The learned Counsels have brought on record various aspects regarding the width of the road, the size of the footpaths, etc., and have submitted that since Gandhibazar main road is a two-way road where local buses travel, the width of the road cannot be reduced. It is submitted that at least at four points, on either side of the road, there are bus shelters and the study conducted by Governmental Agencies have revealed that the road cannot be converted into 'one- way' and on the other hand, the government should consider increasing the width of the carriageway. Studies reveal that there is high density vehicular movement on the Gandhibazar main road which connects Chamarajapet and Basavanagudi, two of the densely populated areas in Bengaluru. It is -18- contended that in terms of the Geometric Design Standards for Urban roads and streets, Indian Road Congress, 2018, the recommended carriageway width for a two-lane with raised kerbs is 7 meters. It is contended that any reduction in the width of the carriageway will not only be unscientific, but also make way for serious traffic congestion and gridlocks.
5. Learned Counsels would contend that the State Government has notified the Karnataka Street Vendors (Protection of livelihoods, regulation of street vending and licensing) Scheme, 2020, on 15.06.2020, ignoring the provisions contained in the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and regulations of street vending) Act, 2014, and the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, and the new Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. It is contended that all the above mentioned enactments prohibit all and any constructions on streets and footpaths. However, provision is sought to be made in the proposed plan to put up permanent structures enabling the street vendors to -19- occupy the same and do business on the footpaths. It is vehemently contended that such a proposal for erecting permanent structures on the footpaths of Gandhibazar main road violates not only the provisions of the statutes but also violates the fundamental rights to livelihood conferred on the petitioners by the Constitution of India.
6. During the course of these proceedings, the BBMP was called upon to furnish the proposed plan for modernization taken up by the BBMP and further details were also sought regarding the studies conducted by the BBMP, the engineering designs approved for modernization of the Gandhibazar main road. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP has placed all such information, including the designs and artistic impression of the proposed plan, before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP submitted that the problem of street vendors occupying a major part of the footpaths and road was persisting for several decades and -20- therefore, the BBMP had to take a firm decision in the matter of evicting the street vendors and at the same time providing for their livelihood, having regard to the provisions contained in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Street Vendors Act'). It was submitted that the BBMP has only taken up the work of modernization of Gandhibazar main road, which will not harm the interests of the residents, owners, occupants of the shops and establishments abutting the road and on the other hand, the modernization of the road will further enhance the business and therefore there was no reason for the petitioners to be aggrieved or agitated.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP submitted that although, on paper it appears that the present carriageway on the road is more than 7 meters, nevertheless, the existence of huge rain trees on either side of the road has practically reduced the carriageway to about 7 meters. It is -21- therefore submitted that the contentions of the petitioners regarding reduction of the carriageway is factually incorrect. The learned Counsel would submit in the same vein that the requirement as per the Indian Road Congress, as was pointed out by the learned Counsels for the petitioners, that a minimum of 7 meters carriageway should be provided, is fulfilled, even with the proposed plan.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that having regard to the fact that the carriageway shall be maintained at 7 meters, the footpath is sought to be redesigned. The footpath would now be redesigned in such a manner that ample parking space is provided for and in all other places the size of the footpath would be increased, while maintaining the carriageway of 7 meters. It may therefore seem from the proposed design that the footpaths are widened. Although, it may be true that the width of the footpaths are increased, but, the increase of the footpaths will only be in certain portions of the road and not throughout. At -22- any rate, the size of the carriageway will be maintained at a minimum of 7 meters, which would meet the requirements of law.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP would further submit that the proposed plan for modernization of Gandhibazar main road is made having regard to the provisions contained in the Street Vendors Act, more particularly, the definition of the term "vending zone". It is submitted that the Street Vendors Act which seeks to protect the livelihood and at the same time regulate street vending, mandates that the local authority shall designate for the specific use by street vendors, specific zones for street vending on footpath, side-walk, pavement, embankment, portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place considered suitable for vending activities and providing services to the general public. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners herein cannot claim exclusive rights of doing business, to the detriment of the street vendors. Having this -23- in mind, the proposed plan is designed in such a manner that an exclusive side-walk, measuring a minimum of 2 meters is provided for. In the proposed side-walk, which commences immediately after the building line, no obstructions will be caused on the side-walk and therefore, there will be clear access by the pedestrians to the shops and establishments. Learned Counsel submits that although provision is made as per the said definition of "vending zone" in the Street Vendors Act to provide for "vending zone" even on side-walks, however, in the present design, it is ensured that no obstructions is caused on the side-walks and no "vending zone" is provided on the side-walks. Provision is made on the area beyond the side-walks, for "vending zone".
11. Learned counsel for the respondent- BBMP submits that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that in the process of re-designing the footpaths, the access which were earlier available to some of the shops and residences are sought to be closed. Learned counsel submits -24- that there was no direct access to any of the shops and establishments or residences on Gandhibazar Main Road even before the re-designing work was taken up. In this regard, the learned counsels for the petitioners were called upon to furnish photographs taken prior to the commencement of the work at the hands of the BBMP to prove their point that there was access available to the individual shops/residences. Photographs were placed on record, both at the hands of the petitioners as well as BBMP, which show that there was no direct access available to any of the shops/residences, from the main road.
12. During the course of the proceedings, the learned counsels for the petitioners placed certain photographs before this Court to substantiate their contentions that contrary to the provisions contained in the BBMP Act and Street Vendors Act, permanent structures in the form of RCC columns were being erected on the footpaths, making provision for the street vendors. However, learned counsel for the respondent - -25- BBMP submitted that the two feet columns were being constructed to form the base to put up temporary shelters/umbrellas to protect the street vendors and their wares. This, according to the learned counsel, does not in any way contravene the provisions contained in the BBMP Act or Street Vendors Act.
13. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, the respondent -BBMP, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the petition papers. At the threshold, it should be stated that this not being a Public Interest Litigation, the scope of the petitions would become substantially narrow, only to consider the individual and personal grievances of the petitioners. It should be therefore made clear that the general contentions of the petitioners regarding the width of the carriageway, the size of the footpaths, the anticipated inconvenience which may be caused to the general public and vehicular movements, gridlocks etc., cannot be considered as legitimate grounds that could be -26- voiced by the petitioners, in these writ petitions. What is required to be considered in these writ petitions is only the individual and personal grievances arising out of the proposed works taken up at the hands of the BBMP.
14. In this backdrop, what may merit consideration is whether the access to the shops/establishments/residences of the writ petitioners is sought to be closed down while re- designing the street and the footpaths. In this regard, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP, the petitioners have failed to prove that there existed access, separately, to the shops/establishments/residences of the writ petitioners. This Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that no such separate access was available to any of the shops/establishments/residences in Gandhibazar Main Road. As an alternative, it was pleaded that provision was made earlier for movement of two wheelers on the footpath so that the shop owners and residential owners/occupants could access their shops/establishments/residences. In this regard, -27- learned counsel for the respondent BBMP has assured this Court that similar access as was available earlier will be provided, while re-designing the street and footpaths. In fact, as per the directions issued by this Court, the respondent BBMP furnished a modified design/plan showing access proposed to be provided at regular intervals, on the footpaths. This court is satisfied regarding the access in the proposed modified plan.
15. The only other contention that may merit consideration in these writ petitions is provision of permanent structures on the street/footpath, which may cause hindrance to the business carried on by the petitioners. No doubt, there are provisions contained in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which was earlier governing the respondent - BBMP, the new BBMP Act, 2020 and the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which prohibit construction/erection of permanent structures on streets and footpaths. However, having regard to the statutory right now vested in the street -28- vendors, more particularly after the enactment of the Street Vendors Act, which is a central enactment, providing for protection of livelihood, livelihood rights as well as social security of the street vendors, further mandates for providing vending zones to be designated by the local authority. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent BBMP, in terms of the definition of the term "Vending Zone"
contained in the Act, the local authority is required to identify and designate such vending zones on footpaths, side-walks, pavements, embankments, portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place considered suitable for vending activities and providing services to the general public. Therefore, if the modernization and re-designing of Gandhibazar Main Road seeks to provide for such vending zone on the footpaths, side-walks, pavements or portions of the street, it cannot be held as contravention of the provisions of law. However, what is prohibited is construction/erection of permanent structures on the footpaths and streets. In that -29- regard, if RCC columns rising to a certain level is sought to be constructed so as to form a base for holding temporary shelters/umbrellas, it cannot be considered as a structure put up in contravention of the provisions of law. It is common knowledge that even while constructing/erecting bus shelters on streets and footpaths, structures are put up to provide shelter to the passengers. If such structures are acceptable, then the proposed shelters should also be accepted.
16. However, it is made clear that in the guise of providing temporary shelters to the street vendors, the respondent-BBMP shall not put up permanent structures which may cause obstructions to the business of the petitioners and/or prohibited by law.
17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that the proposed work of modernization/re- designing of Gandhibazar Main Road is not in contravention of -30- any provision of law. The proposed works do not infringe upon any individual or personal rights of the writ petitioners.
18. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. Pending I.As if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL/KLY