Disposed

Sri P Ranjan Rao v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2018WP/25539/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought a writ directing Mangalore City Corporation to provide footpaths on Bunts Hostel Road. After reviewing the Respondent's affidavit, progress reports, and land acquisition status, the Court held that the work was underway and unnecessary to fix a time frame.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; no specific time frame fixed for completion of footpath works.

Sri P Ranjan Rao Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.No.25539/2015

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25539 OF 2015 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI .P.RANJAN RAO S/O LATE P. SRINIVAS RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT ‘PREM NIVAS’, DOOR NO. 15-6-326/3, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 003.

¶11

DR. R. S. MAHALE, SS/O LATE S. B. MAHALE, AGED 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 15-6-326/4, ‘RAKSHAN’ BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 003.

¶12

SRI. K. CHANDRAHASA S/O LATE ANAND K., AGED 44 YEARS, ADVOCATE & NOTARY, 1^ST FLOOR, SOMAYAJI HOUSE, OPP: HOTEL WOODLAND, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 003.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)

W.P.No.25539/2015

��

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, MANGALURU – 575 003.

¶19

... RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE FOOTPATHS OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH ON EITHER SIDE OF CONCRETIZED BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD/MANGALORE CITY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, FIXED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B GROUP’ THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners, said to be the residents of Mangalore city, have preferred this writ petition (PIL) as a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus that the respondentMangalore City Corporation ought to provide foot-paths of sufficient width on either side of concretized Bunts Hostel Road in Mangalore city within a time frame.

¶26

W.P.No.25539/2015

¶27

��

¶28

After service of notice, the respondent-Mangalore City Corporation has entered appearance through its panel counsel and had filed the statement of objections dated 28.08.2016 supported by an affidavit of its Commissioner. On 06.03.2017 this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that a portion of foot path suggested in the writ petition had been laid and that it would take some more time to complete the project.

¶29

Thereafter, a progress Report was called by this Court by the order dated 21.04.2017 and accordingly, a Report dated 19.04.2017 was filed on 09.06.2017, the relevant portion thereof is as under:

¶30

“The tar road leading from Ambedkar Circle to Bunts Hostel of Mahanagara Palike, Mangaluru is taken up for cement concrete under the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s 100 crores-2^nd Stage Fund.

¶31

Rs.175.00 lakhs is reserved under the premium F.A.R fund for formation of footpath and drainage on the either side of the Newly constructed cement concrete road for free flow of water and also for free movement of the pedestrians and accordingly, the workplan has been approved vide reference No.2 on 01.02.2017. Earlier to this, by anticipating the approval of the Government, tender was invited for formation of drainage and footpath near Woodland Hotel and opposite to it. Out of which

¶32

W.P.No.25539/2015

¶33

��

¶34

the work of Rs 26 lakhs near Woodland Hotel was completed. (Photo copy is enclosed). The work from the otherside is not possible because of occupation of the private land.

¶35

In order to carry out all the development works within the Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike, the private property is being acquired through T.D.R / Land Acquisition. Accordingly, at the time of taking the work, either side of the property is required to be acquired from the private property and then carryout the work. For acquisition of the private property, the notification is published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 04.03.2017 and accordingly, action is taken for acquiring the private property.

¶36

Funds for the proposed work is available, and after inviting the tender for acquiring the private property in accordance with law, the work of drainage and footpath will be carried out”.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation, in the light of the above Report, submits that the relief sought for in this PIL is substantially granted and that further progress of work being under way, this matter could be disposed of. It is also submitted that the projects like formation of foot- paths on either side of the main road and contemplated acquisition of land for widening the roads are fraught with several unseen contingencies and therefore some levage should be left with the authorities. The learned

¶38

W.P.No.25539/2015

¶39

��

¶40

counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that this Court may fix a time frame within which the entire project should be accomplished.

¶41

Having regard to the very nature of the project in question, we find it unnecessary to prescribe any time frame, more particularly when the work is reported to be in progress.

¶42

Therefore this writ petition is disposed recording the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies in due course of time, in case of any legal grievances remaining or arising in future.

¶43

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/- JUDGE

¶45

Snb\Bsv

Sri P Ranjan Rao v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Ranjan Rao v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Syed Alim Vs Sri. Akthar Mateen

Sri. D. v. Venkatesh Gowda Vs the Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers

Ibthesam Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. D C Ramesh (Alias Raghu) Vs the State of Karnataka

E Lakshmi Vs Corporaton Bank

Sri. K. Ananth Vs the State of Karnataka