Karnataka High Court
Sobha Developers Limited vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike on 8 March, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
W.P.NO.26107/2012
&
W.P.NOS.26452-26454/2012 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
SARJAPUR-MARATHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABISANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST,
BANGALORE-560 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR.VIJAYAKUMAR G.BAGOJI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR ANUP S.
SHAH LAW FIRM & SRI.SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, ADVS.)
2
AND
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR.
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH).
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
5. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
3
KUMARAKRUPA ROAD,
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R1-R4
SRI.B.V. SHANKAR NARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
27/03/2012 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS
ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 15/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 AS ANNEXURE-B.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsements dated 27.03.2012, 15.06.2012, 05.07.2012 and 21.07.2012 which are impugned at Annexures-A to D to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to the respondents to issue commencement certificate for Block No.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioner.
4
2. The case of the petitioner is that they have taken up construction of the apartment blocks after obtaining due approval of the plan from the statutory respondents. When this was the position, they were required to obtain commencement certificate after the initial stage of construction. When the applications made by the petitioner had not been considered one way or the other, the petitioner was entitled to deemed permission and as such had proceeded with the construction. At that stage, the impugned endorsements at Annexures- A to D were issued to the petitioner indicating to them that the request made by the petitioner seeking commencement certificate cannot be considered at this stage and that they should stop further constructions and await the decision in the writ petition filed in public interest in W.P. No. 1958/2011. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such action is before this Court in these petitions.
5
3. The respondents have entered appearance and filed a detailed objection statement. Though they seek to justify the action initiated by them, it is their contention that in the petition filed in W.P. No. 1958/2011, which is in public interest, the petitioners therein have sought that the petitioner herein shall not be allowed to put up construction. It is therefore contended that the statutory respondents being sensitive to the issue and since public interest petition is pending and further taking note of the fact that no further activities should take place during the pendency of the petition, the impugned endorsements have been issued. It is therefore contended that the respondents are justified in their action and no interference is called for.
4. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned endorsements itself would indicate that 6 the respondents have based their action on public interest petition in W.P. No. 1958/2011. In that view of the matter, the issue lies in a narrow compass to find out whether there is any restraint in that petition either against the petitioner or the official respondents herein relating to the construction activities being carried on by the petitioner.
5. The order sheet of W.P. No.1958/2011 is also furnished to this Court. A perusal of the same would indicate that notwithstanding the grievance putforth by the petitioners therein, there is no absolute restraint against the construction activity being carried on by the petitioner. No doubt, there are certain regulatory methods indicated with regard to the nature of the construction activity. Therefore, in such circumstance, when in the said writ petition this Court has not thought it fit to restrain the construction activity in its entirety and more so when there is no such interim orders passed 7 in the said petition, the official respondents in any event could not have resorted to the present action of issuing the endorsements in the present form restraining all further activities more so when the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein in their objection statement filed in the public interest petition have asserted the fact that the petitioner herein has obtained prior approval in accordance with the building bye-laws.
6. Therefore, in the absence of restraint, there could be no impediment for the petitioner to proceed with the construction in accordance with law and as per the sanction plan. Needless to mention, the statutory respondents in any event would be entitled to inspect the premises to ensure that the construction is being put up in accordance with the sanction plan, but it would not be open for them to deny the commencement certificate sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the endorsements impugned at Annexures-A to D to the said effect stands 8 quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and issue commencement certificate with a condition that the construction should be put up in accordance with the sanction plan and the Building Bye-laws and such construction in any event would be subject to the outcome of the public interest petition.
7. In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*