Disposed

Lt Col P R Rai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2021WP/10342/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a PIL challenging the construction of the Peripheral Ring Road and associated land acquisition. The court held that since the project was already scrutinized by the Supreme Court, the petition was not entertained, and the respondents were directed to comply with existing Supreme Court directions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; direction issued to respondents to comply with Supreme Court directions in Bengaluru Development Authority v. Mr. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors.

Lt Col P R Rai Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.10342/2008 (LA-BDA-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

1 . LT. COL. P. R. RAI, B.A., B.E., AMIE, FIV, FIIRA, S/O. LATE DASA RAI AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT NO. 40, ASIANA, SANKEY ROAD CROSS, HIGH GROUNDS BANGALORE – 560 052

¶11

2 . MR SRIVATSAN C. S/O. LATE K.C.R. CHAKRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT 28/29, MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD BANGALORE – 560 001

¶12

3 . DR. SHYAM PRASAD SHETTY B., FRCS (CARDIO THORACIC SURGERY) FRCS (ENG.) FRCS (EDIN) S/O. LATE K.N.MAHABALA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.784 A, 8^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038

¶13

4 . MR K.N.VITTAL SHETTY S/O. LATE AMMU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.3442, 4^TH CROSS 10^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038

¶14

¶15

5 . DR. V SHRINIVAS M.D., DCP S/O. LATE DR M.T.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.492, 5^TH MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE – 560 086

¶16

6 . MR B.GOPALKRISHNA RAI S/O M.RAMANNA RAI AGED ABOUT 55 YERAS, R/AT NO.243, BASAPPA LAYOUT, HENNUR, KALYANAGAR, P.O., BANGALORE 560 043

¶17

7 . MR SATHYAMURTHY V. S/O VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.1081, VSB NIVAS, BEHIND MARAPPA BLOCK, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR P.O. BANGALORE- 560 016

¶18

8 . MR VINOD KUMAR R. S/O RAJARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, MARUTHI STREET, POST OFFICE ROAD, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, DOORAVANINAGAR P.O., BANGALORE 560 016

¶19

9 . MR RAFIQ AYUB S/O AYUB SAIT AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, 2^ND CROSS, XAVIER LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 047

¶20

10 . MRS LILLIAN XAVIER W/O LATE MR.S.V.XAVIER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO."MANJULA", # 33/5, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE -560 047

¶21

¶22

11 . MR G.SURENDRANATH S/O. LATE G GOPALA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.B-15, K H B COLONY PUTTENHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 064 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUN KUMAR K. ADV. FOR M/S.CREST LAW PARTNER, ADV. FOR P2, P4, P10 SMT.MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADV. FOR M/S ARGUS PARTNERS, ADVOCATES FOR P5, P9, P11) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020 4 . NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS ) G5-6, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 SRI SACHIN B.S., ADV. FOR R2 AND R3 SMT.SHILPA SHAH, ADV. FOR M/S.SINGHANIA & PARTNERS, ADV. FOR R4)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS DT: 23.09.2005, 15.11.2006 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DT: 29.06.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-H,J AND M RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The present petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) by the petitioners challenging the construction of Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) in and around the township of Bengaluru. Various grounds have been raised by the petitioners and the following prayers have been made in the writ petition:

¶30

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the notifications No.BDA / Commr / DC (LA) / SALAO/79/ 2005-06 dated 23-9-05, BDA/Commr/DC(LA)/SALAO/79/ 2006-07 dated 15-11-06, and final notification no UDD/399/MNX/2006 dated 29-6-2007 vide Annexure 'H', 'J', and 'M' respectively.

¶31

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the approval granted by the Government UDD/399/MNX 2006, dated 23-4-07 at Annexure 'L'.

¶32

c. Grant such other relief of reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

The petitioners are also challenging the land

¶34

acquisition proceedings in the instant PIL. So far as the

¶35

¶36

acquisition of land is concerned, any individual who is aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings does have a right to take recourse to the remedies available under the law. So far as other aspects of the case are concerned, the same project was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority v. Mr.Sudhakar Hegde & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2566/2019 has laid down certain parameters for construction of Peripheral Ring Road, Phase-I and issued various directions in paragraphs-83, 84 and 85, which are reproduced as under:

¶37

"83. Bearing in mind the need to bring about a requisite balance, we propose to issue the following directions under Article 142 of the Constitution:

¶38

(i)The appellant is directed to conduct a fresh rapid EIA for the proposed PRR project;

¶39

(ii)The appellant shall, for the purpose of conducting the rapid EIA, hire a sector-specific accredited EIA consultant;

¶40

(iii)The appellant shall have due regard to the various deficiencies noted in the present judgment as well as ensure that additional precautions are taken to account for the prevailing state of the environment;

¶41

The appellant shall ensure that the requisite clearances under various enactments have been obtained and submitted to the SEAC prior to the consideration by it of the information submitted by the appellant in

¶42

¶43

accordance with the OMs issued by MoEFCC from time to time;

¶44

The SEAC shall thereafter assess the rapid EIA report and other information submitted to it by the appellant in accordance with the role assigned to it under the 2006 Notification. If it is of the opinion that the appellant has complied with the 2006 Notification as well as the directions issued by this Court, only then shall it recommend to the SEIAA the grant of EC for the proposed project. The SEAC and the SEIAA would lay down appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socio-economic environment and other conditions it deems fit; and

¶45

The appellant shall consult the requisite authority to ensure that no potential damage is caused by the project to the petroleum pipelines over which the proposed road may be constructed.

¶46

In moulding the above directions, this Court has factored into its decision-making calculus the fact that the appeal from the judgment of the NGT was filed by the project proponent and no appeal was filed by the respondents. The order of the NGT directing the appellant to conduct a rapid EIA is upheld, though for the reasons which we have indicated above. We clarify that no other Court or tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the ultimate decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA. Liberty is granted to the parties to approach this Court upon any grievance from the decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA pursuant to the order of this Court.

¶47

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶49

In the considered opinion of this Court, as the

¶50

same project, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been minutely scrutinized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The directions issued by the Hon'ble

¶51

¶52

Supreme Court are to be complied with and therefore, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply all the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶53

It is needless to mention as aforesaid that if any

¶54

person is aggrieved by the land acquisition, he shall be free to seek recourse to the remedies available in law.

¶55

Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

SD/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

SD/-

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Lt Col P R Rai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lt Col P R Rai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ans Mines and Minerals Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Chandrashekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sherwood Residents Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jsw Projects Ltd., Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Ramesh Naik L Vs Jas Tool Road Co. Ltd.