Lakshmamma vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 17 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Lakshmamma vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 17 September, 2010

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN GALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBEI-L-261-O
BEFORE "° ' '

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE   ' " I

WRIT PETITION No. 1 1737 QF..ieO1O-{I3I);Aj[f--..__A 

BETWEEN:

SMT. 1-, LAKSHIVIAMMA
W/O. N LAKSHMANA V 
AGE 49 YEARS

R/AT NO. 26. (8/3} ._  .~
SR9 MAIN ROAD,._PIPELIN7F,_  '

SREE:»IzxG;*»¥§'i:: SALCIQEI 4 "SO;  ... PETITIONER
{BY Sm N    8: BYREZGOWDA N, ADV)

AND:

 «_ 1  T1913 BAN'GALO_?zE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
»   P~W..1_:ST. BANGALORE W 20

* R}33I§.BY~IT'.S COMMISSIONER.

2  T {E OEPUTY SECRETARY M 2

'  BANGALORE DEVELOP1\/IEZNI' AUTE-IORITY

T___CHOWDAIAH ROAD, K P WEST

I  BANGALORE - 20.  RESPONDENTS

I133? 'SR1. K N PUTTEGOWIDA, ADV) THIS WRI.T PE'I'I'I'ION IS FILED UI\}'1')ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2.1/06/2007 VIDE ANN»C PASSHLD BY THE R2 BY W§'IICI"I TI--IE ALLOTMENT OF SITE NO, 720 58% "J

-4...

MEASURHKEB X 9 METERS SHTMJED aJTy§peSKCv1 STAGE, BLOCK 11 HAS BEEN CANCELLED; ETC} ' . 'HHsPEHnoNcoMm«3oNFoRPReHE§mNeINT§*l GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE""TH&EZ-.FQL-l..CV$'INGi oReERCC Petitioners applieatio11..yrfor aliotnleiit l'ofl'al site 0' reserved for economically2tWe'a.1§ef'"*-eeetioﬁ" ufzder the Bangalore Developmeot~0.ZllL§t.}ioi9it:.I:_CCV(Allot_ment of Sites) Rules, 1984' into an amnmau5M§eNo1&$fMﬁﬁ@mBmdgBSK6mSmg:

meas1:'.=,_rin_g-- by letter dated 4.2.2004 An11eXufe+l'A". by yet another allO17i¥IlIile11t lettefvl dated 24.03.2007 Axmexure-"B". allotted Site No.720. BSK 61'" Stage, 11"' 6 x 9 mts. The respondent --~ 0 Baligal'o;e'l)eVelopment Authority (for short 'BDA'}, by eoCIn;nLv1tr1ieaf.ion dated 21.06.2007 Annexure«~"C", ealleelled the allotment on the premise that the yearly m§}.'1C0i'I1€ of the pet1'ti(mer and her l1U.SlC).':}.I'lCl exceeded the income notified by the Government for allotment of sites 55% 4-4_§& reserved for persons belonging to eeonornieally sections. Hence this writ petition.

2. There can be no dispute thiatftliye as defined in Rule 2[e) of the'Rule'sAiri--eansV.s-uoh :peifs.on,j"'~ry the wife or husband as the maybe person and the children, parerits, Tsisj:ers..V_a,.nt?..brothers of such person who are him while "eoonornically is ldlefined under sub--rule (CI) togrnean'Vfiersonsbelnonging to economically weaker seetiori"as" tiotiifieci'by~..r_C+o';ferrinieni: from time to time, provided the nerson satisfies the Condition laid of Rule 10. Sub--ru1e [2) of Rule 10 is"-ijriAlrevs'peet.l:"o~f"eligibility and states that one who is not a "'dorr_iieil,e"' of Karnataka for less than 15 years imrnediately prior to the date of registration, is ineiigibie "for 'allotment. The Government notiﬁcation prescribes ""Rs.il,8OO/W as the yearly income so as to enable a person to claim to belong to eeonoisnieally weaker ie:

-4-

section, for allotment of a site reserved undper_l4't.tie§"sai'd category.

8. A bare perusal of indicate the amount the in hers' application as annual income. as a1so'vvth,8:t of her husband. On the contr_ary,..,Fi1fineXi_ir?"'.C" order of the BDA is a p_r_inted_ i§la.nl{s":fllled up and the appropriate is more telegraphic.

In " does not animate consideration of 'ail'there-«1eVa_n_t material, much less the actigal _.arn.ouVnt"'ldeclared as yearly income of the petitio'ner_lland her husband, which exceeds the income re~ferred;""«t'vo Government notification, for persons to""'---c1ai'rr1~.ito belong to economically weaker section. Tl"3__.L1S,lll'{l'1€ order suffers from an error apparent on the of the record. Even otherwise, the order suffers V V'Hf£'OI'},'1 violation of principles of natural justice since the order is not preceded by a show cause notice to the petitioner. It is elsewhere said affected must._ be appraised is the constitutional creed 'ﬂouringgM_fror;ic:"~t1*ie postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of" d Although learned counsel'; for r the » resfj'onderite :;_~A~ EDA submits that he V$Vfo'e1\V1.d a objections and produce records»v1n;~sup;5ort_of the order, I am afraid, such a courseof -impermissible in the light of the_:aa;thorit'ati§f{e of the Apex Court over" aridﬂvinterpretation of public orders "i1_1" ecomdmissiailkek OF POLICE, BOMBAY vs. Gorfensianijas BHA1§mi', wherein it is held thus:

:'4._£P1ib1ic orders, publiciy made, i'n"exercise AA authority cannot be construed in t1=ic_iight of expianatiohs subsequentiy given by *~ officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what. he intended to do. Pubiie orders made by pubiic aut,horii,ies are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must he ,5 AIR :39; 1932 at, re ..,=' H6- construed objectiveiy with reference language used in the order :itseH'." Writ petition sueceeds.7.__ :'..f_[j1E1e3_.order"~"--ngiateri 21.06.2007 AnneXure~"C"':_'ef. the ;-¢sp§nVdefut1:§jtie.

quashed reserving liberty BDA to initiate action, if petitioner for violation of after extending an representation to the thereon in accordance with 1'-aw", _assign:'i'ng*'reaso"r1_s," findings and conclusions.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court