Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. It is further stated ''«that a matter of fact has passed CFE order dated-liip. alleged judgment dated does not find a place in reference.aNo~.rl;l':'t.p.._8 note of the order dated 12.10.2007," suspicion as on to why said documen'ts_Vhdid place if they existed at all as 03 order it jjassed by the Board on 12.10.2007. Evenifl, sheet of the case examined by the Ziixppellate 'Ati;thority4s:'i__vfould have reflected the same in the Vynarratiori of faets'.';. The truth of the matter is that there is no the order--sheet, which leads to the presumption mai administration indulged by the Board in \t/ concocting the said documents. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate and consider this important aspect of the matter, at the time of examining the correctness of granting the CFE in favour of the Construction 0. which indicates that the Appellate _.Authority''''' application of mind has passed in1ptxgned* 20.02.2008. On this ground lia'b1e"v§t0 be quashed. The Board has failedltoi. viAt:l_1»li_3_'_'1etter dated 06.08.2007 got sent his Advocate addressed to the hearing date of Review Petitioritllisl passed by the first respondent" in the Principles of Natural Justice ands -.fL_1rtiher.:lAA CFE in favour of the Constri1'ctionl.Co:r3pany byvflthle Board in exercise of the review ._power ) of the Water Act not noticed in Vthelifact that there- a__ statutory violation on the part of the Company in constructing the building upon the ., there being an access road to it and approval of plan and obtaining s ctioned plan and the "} and not noticing the ratio laid down by the licence from the Commissioner of the erstwhile C.1\/I.C, Mahadevapura, who is not the competent Authority in law and further without obtaining CFE for construction building from the Board as required U / S 25 of the . is in Violation of the decision of the Supreme matter of Rural Litigation and Entitleémenty ifl State of U.P. reported in further placed strong reliance upon tithe Supreme Court in the case of;'~'Vir§11dra of Haryana reported in AIR the Apex Court while referringrdtov of United Nations in 197id"rn!ade " {he _ therefore affirms both aspects of eVnviro'nment, the natural and man " made' and theprotection is essential to his Well '~..be.i1ig~.a'n_.Vd the enjoyment of basic human r'ight's i.e», :1=i,vgiiti'Vto'1ife itself." ' .22. it. is" fuiirther urged that the grant of CFE by iiéeviiieimdiag its ea:-her order dated 25.11.2006 without hearing 'W notification is produced at Annexure--C along with the petition. Clause 9 of the said notification 3 "Licenses for both orange and green category industries be issued by the Municipalities / Municipal the industry obtains Consent for EstablishIr1'ent the Karnataka State Pollution Control::Board";'* of Environment and Forest l'I1l§'#"'iifiEati0I1 bearing No.80 801 (E) dated by which after sub--clause ff] 'iiigofhiiinneittijre»--hB:VViAsiib--clause (g) and (h) were inter 31 being 'New Construction 'New Industrial Estates' was inter It is stated by the petitioner that of said notification, any cons"t1fuhctiogn" fallingiinder Entry 31 of the Schedule - I including industrial townships, settlement colonies, cemniercial complexes, hospitals and office for 'i",0O0 (one thousand) persons or below or

Bangalore Development Authority A_ct~,., as of the " " Conversion V stipulated in Condition No Order'? ' (3) Whether the building in questioiiis a or a Single Building?

(4) Whether the com::_riencement..of--.,the c'onvstrv;£ction of the building upon th:~e_ pldt in question on the basis of the sanctioned plan' by the CMC, as on that date, CFE was -'not'~~.fgranted by the Karnataka State s'Pollution.jj-Control Board and therefore .constn1ct.io1€1 of the_b'uild--ing is illegal? (5) Whether V. 6: the building is in violation of tli'ci-2,Zonal-._Regulations and Building Bye laws appIie;a_.ble'3to the plot in question? (6) Whether" there is"any«.._violation of fundamental rights or statutory rights of-'the neighbouring residents in particular th_e"residents of the locality in general or other__citizens"b;.rconstructing the building in the plot . .VWithout obtaining CFE from the Board as on that ' date.anri-.n'o---_public road access either te ingress or egressfito {the building, thereby public injury is ' caused. 'anrlell therefore public interest is affected? 'W P i§¢i.%iioo/2008:

_ e _ "€2.40 'group housing' means more than _ _' two building on a plot with one or more floors and one or more dwelling units in each floor.
-. fl' hey are connected by an access of not less than \m/ the definition of "group Housing" as defined in clause 2.40--.of the Bye--laW as extracted above. According to this there must be more than two buildings on a plot 'o_:r:Ied.4_or' C more floors and with one or more dwelling units"«_1'r1*'each-ufloory f and they must be connected by an accessA'ofCnot less. meters in width and they are not approachable. from the road. The said definitiq.-fi:4"'does'Ai.noti':'fit'~\..i'r1to thebuilding which is being constructed by upon the plot as per the issued by the City Municipality? favour of the Construction of the Writ petitioner in ' building in question is a "group Housing" gcannotyybe"'acc=epted by this Court. ,:.V'F'u.1fthe1" Bye law clause No.8.1 the means of access todthe' building in question means exclusive access than thorough public roads and streets and shall not be .than.V.3dO'rA_«meters in length, public road from the street. width of such access shall be 3.5 meters and \m/ further construction of building with plots of common ac "ess shall be regulated according to such common acce-ssfi' The learned Senior counsel on behalf of the Construction has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid Building clauses which are applicable to the bu__ildi_ng qtuestlioliili it Therefore We have to accept his sub1niission.a1i.d'l'iold is not a "group Housing" to attracts-"'th'e'~ Table No';'9'*"of the Building Bye laws as contended Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioilierilin must be public road, widthioif in square meter is over 1000. meters must be over 15 meter is not correct as' is not apP1iC3b1€ t0 the building in qu_.e.stion"." we answer the said point in favour' V company and against the petitioximf PlI;"petition§~~ V48. construction of the building is not a group =:éhousing:e»andi--further we have stated that "means of access" to is/i the Building is very much available, this aspect is clearfrom clause 8 of the Building Bye laws, which reads thus:p'....._'4:
" 8.1 The means of exclusive access other"'thanf. I thorough public roads and streets, Sh"a'H--,I'iOt"= be of more than 30 meters in length from a ' . public road or street. The minimum v'vid'th"'of"

such access shall be 3.5 meters;_F.A.R.;y'and" é height of buildings coming up on siicli'V_plo'ts... connected by means of exclusive accessshall be regulated according to the width oi-".publ_i£:

street or road. If the means 'o._f'ac"eess exceeds 30.00 meters 111-«.__'j?.engti1V-,w. "shall be regulated with reference'tol'the_.}x7idth of such access road. Construction of'v,_v/aiding on plots with «common §a,ccess7'lanesVf'from the public roati/street shal.lj.V be" regulated according 0' jto" 'the "W-idlthp of such common access roa'ds:'.{lanes=.. ~ 'A 8.2 Existing lco.nservan.cy~...l_anes are not allowed to 'be'4used~.as'=rr1ea_n.s: of access to the properties. ' V' ' 8.3 ~l:~uilding_shall be erected so as to obstruct ._'tl*se inileans ofaecess of any other building.