A writ petition filed as a public interest litigation was dismissed by two judges of the High Court at Bengaluru. The court exercised discretion to decline PIL jurisdiction, noting that respondents were taking steps to fence the pipeline addressing the petitioner's grievance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
W.P.No.52301/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.52301/2018 (GM-BWSSB-PIL)
BETWEEN :
SRI P.S. GACHHINAKATTI S/O S.P. GACHHINAKATTI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (RETD) RESIDING AT NO.24, KESHAVA NIVAS KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 009
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
W.P.No.52301/2018
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO FENCE THE PIPELINE AND ALLOW RESPONDENT NO.3 TO MAINTAIN A PARK FOR WALKING TO THE NEIGHBOURING RESIDENCE TO USE THE SAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this petition as a public interest litigation (PIL), particularly when it is seen from the document (Annexure-D) that the respondents are attending on the issues raised by the petitioner so as to take steps for fencing the pipeline in question.
The petitioner is, even otherwise, free to make further representation to the authorities concerned stating his grievance as also the viewpoints for consideration. But, on the
3
submissions as sought to be made, we are not persuaded to entertain this petition. Exercise of PIL jurisdiction in this matter is declined.
Subject to the observations foregoing, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Sd/-
bkv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the threshold for entertaining the writ petition as a public interest litigation is met.
Sri P.S. Gachhinakatti
The State of Karnataka
The Commissioner, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Dinesh Maheshwari
S. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
