Dismissed

Sri Keshav Vajapayam v. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WP/12590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a petitioner alleging unauthorized constructions by residents. The court held the petition lacked bona fides, was filed out of vendetta as a counterblast to a previous PIL, and did not serve any genuine public interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pay total costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

Sri Keshav Vajapayam Vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.12590/2020 (LB-BMP-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KESHAV VAJAPAYAM S/O. SATHYA VAJAPAYAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.1138, KAMALASHRI, ANJANAPURA, 11^TH BLOCK, KEMBATHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 083. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.P. NAGAR SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶14

SRI. ADITHYA RAO FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.116, 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

SRI. B.A. MADHUKAR FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.89, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶17

SRI. K.M. SIDDARAJU FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.259/1, 7^TH MAIN, 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶18

SRI. PRAMOD TANITA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.184, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-6)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND R-2 TO TAKE SUCH AND SUITABLE ACTION IN RESPECT OF PRIVATE PARTY RESPONDENTS AS ALSO THE OTHER RESIDENTS OF J.P. NAGAR 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT OCCUPYING THE PREMISES WITHOUT OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES AND EVEN THEIR CONSTRUCTIONS HAVING BEEN PUT UP WITHOUT SANCTIONED PLAN OR AT ANY RATE IN VIOLATION OF SANCTIONED PLANS AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS INCLUDING THE CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition is stated to be filed in public interest. The petitioner is a 28 years old youth residing at No.1138, Kamalashri, Anjanapura, 11th Block, Kembathalli, Bengaluru - 560 083, who has stated that he is a public spirited citizen and he is keen and interested to ensure the orderly and lawful growth of the City of Bengaluru and also intends to take steps through the process of law as against any illegal activities in relation to the growth of the City as such. Petitioner has stated that he is not seeking any relief for himself, but interested in ensuring the implementation of law and hence, he has filed the present writ petition in public interest.

¶26

According to the petitioner respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the so called office bearers of J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout Residents Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Residents' Welfare Association" for the sake of convenience). The office bearers are operating on a selective basis by targeting people in the locality by initially getting notices issued by respondent No.1/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP") and thereafter

¶27

-: 4 :-

¶28

asking the residents to shell down amounts for not precipitating the matter. Though some of the residents have expressed about such activities, they are not ready to file affidavits.

¶29

That respondent Nos.3 to 6 are occupying certain properties as shown in the table below:

¶30

Sl.No.	Respondent	Resident Details
1	NO.3	116, 5th Main, 3rd Cross, J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout, Bengaluru.
2	NO.4	89, 3rd Main, J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout, Bengaluru.
3	NO.5	259/1, 7th Main, J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout, Bengaluru.
4	NO.6	184, 4th Main Road, J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout, Bengaluru.

¶31

The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act" for short) to find out if there are any plans sanctioned or occupancy certificates which have been issued in respect of the aforesaid premises. The BBMP has sent a reply that they do not have any copy of the plan sanctioned or commencement certificates or occupancy certificates issued in respect of the premises which have been occupied by respondent Nos.3 to 6. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to BBMP indicating that

¶32

-: 5 :-

¶33

BBMP has not taken any action against respondent Nos.3 to 6. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the BBMP in strictly implementing the law, against respondent Nos.3 to 6 despite not having any plan sanctioned or occupancy certificates and having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, the writ petition has been filed in public interest seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 3/BBMP to take suitable action in respect of private parties, respondent Nos.3 to 6 or any other residents of J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout occupying premises without occupancy certificates or even constructions being put up without sanctioned plans or violation of sanctioned plans and to pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate including the consideration of representation dated 26/09/2020 vide Annexure - B. For better appreciation of the prayers as well as interim prayer sought for by the petitioner, the same are extracted as under:

¶34

" PRAYER

¶35

WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶36

(i) ISSUE A WRIT in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take such

¶37

-: 6 :-

¶38

and suitable action in respect of private party respondents as also the other residents of J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout occupying the premises without occupancy certificates and even their constructions having been put up without sanctioned plan or at any rate in violation of sanctioned plans and pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate including the consideration of representation dated 26.09.2020 vide Annexure-B the ends of justice and equity.

¶39

INTERIM PRAYER

¶40

Pending disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to file a report indicating the number of constructions put up in J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout and which of them has valid sanctioned plan, which of them has been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and which one of them has violated the same and which of the premises occupation is preceded with issuance of occupancy certificate and pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the ends of justice and equity."

¶41

In response to the writ petition, respondent

¶42

Nos.3 to 6 have filed their statement of objections and contended that this writ petition filed by the petitioner as a public interest petition is an abuse of process of law and of

¶43

-: 7 :-

¶44

this Court and has been filed at the instance of H.S.Rukmini and H.S. Venkatesh, who are residents of J.P.Nagar, 4th Phase, Dollars Layout. That the Residents' Welfare Association of the said Dollars layout have filed W.P.No.24668/2019 before this Court contending that H.S.Rukmini has put up an unauthorised construction of residential-cum-commercial complex. That the Residents' Welfare Association sought a direction against the BBMP for consideration of its representation. A copy of the memorandum of writ petition is produced as Annexure- R1 to the statement of objections. The said writ petition is pending consideration before this Court and the order dated 14/01/2020 passed by this Court has been assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.2139/2020, wherein on 14/10/2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the direction for handing over possession of the building put up by H.S.Rukmini to BBMP. That in W.P.No.24668/2019 this Court also passed an order as against the office bearers of the Residents' Welfare Association and by order dated 03/08/2020 this Court directed the BBMP to take action in accordance with law if some of the office bearers of the Residents' Welfare

¶45

-: 8 :-

¶46

Association have illegally occupied the premises without obtaining any certificate or permission in accordance with Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) vide Annexure - R3. That order is also assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has granted an interim order and directed the BBMP not to take any coercive steps. The statement of objections further avers that this public interest litigation (PIL) lacks bona fides and is contrary to the norms of filing a PIL and is an outcome of vengeance and a counterblast to the PIL by the Residents' Welfare Association in W.P.No.24668/2019.

¶47

It is further averred that respondent Nos.3 to 6 have obtained sanctioned plan from the BBMP/BDA and completed construction of their buildings in the year 2008, 2013 and 2003 respectively and have been residing in their houses along with their family ever since then. Now, after a lapse of more than a decade, this PIL has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is not even a resident of J.P.Nagar. He resides elsewhere in Kembathalli and hence, the writ petition is filed simply to target respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are the office bearers of the Residents' Welfare

¶48

-: 9 :-

¶49

Association. The writ petition smacks of vengeance and there is no public interest whatsoever in this matter and hence, the same may be dismissed.

¶50

Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have further averred that the petitioner is residing at No.1138, Kamalashri, Anjanapura, Kembathalli, Bengaluru, which itself has been constructed in violation of the building bye-laws and sanctioned plan and therefore, the petitioner has no moral right or authority to file this writ petition. That he does not have credentials to be a public spirited person so as to maintain this writ petition in public interest. Therefore, the same ought to be dismissed as being motivated and lacking bona fides.

¶51

It is further averred that this Court on 11/11/2020 passed an ex parte order directing respondent No.1 to ascertain as to whether the allegations of violations in the houses put up by respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein are correct or not. In response to the said order, the BBMP issued notices under Section 308 of the KMC Act on 09/09/2020 calling upon respondent Nos.3 to 6 to produce the sanctioned plan and certain documents.

¶52

-: 10 :-

¶53

Respondent Nos.3 and 5 have filed their reply on 14/09/2020 and respondent No.6 has replied on 12/09/2020 stating that they were no longer office bearers of the Residents' Welfare Association when W.P.No.24668/2019 was filed and therefore, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶54

Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have further averred that respondent No.5 issued notice dated 26/11/2020 calling upon respondent Nos.3 to 6 to produce sanctioned plan and certain documents, even before the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were served with the notice issued by this Court in this writ petition. They were not even aware of any writ petition having been filed against them. Nevertheless, respondent Nos.3 and 5 issued reply on 27/11/2020 and respondent No.2 issued reply on 29/11/2020 stating that they were not aware of any case that had been filed against them. Immediately thereafter, provisional order was passed on 02/12/2020 and show-cause notice issued on even date under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act. Copies of the same are produced at Annexures - R6, R7 and R8. Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 sought ten days time

¶55

to submit their reply vide letter dated 07/12/2020

¶56

-: 11 :-

¶57

collectively produced as Annexure - R9. Thereafter, they replied on 10/12/2020 pointing out that the notice issued by the BBMP lacked clarity and was as vague as it can be and it was issued without there being any basis to do so. However, respondent No.1/BBMP issued provisional order dated 21/12/2020 and show-cause notice under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act stating that they have withdrawn provisional order issued earlier. Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 submitted that their reply dated 29/12/2020, inter alia pointing out that the building was constructed more than twelve years, seven years, seventeen years ago and therefore, at this juncture, respondent No.2 could not initiate any action under Section 321 of the KMC Act. Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 also sought for an opportunity of personal hearing. However, without granting any opportunity of hearing and in a biased and arbitrary manner respondent No.1/BBMP passed the confirmation order dated 30/12/2020, which are produced collectively as Annexure -R15.

¶58

Being aggrieved respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 have filed appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("Appellate Tribunal") challenging the orders dated

¶59

-: 12 :-

¶60

30/12/2020. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he had obtained the modified sanctioned plan on 16/06/2020, which is at Annexure - R16. Respondent No.4 is putting up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the construction is not yet completed. Hence, no notice was issued to respondent No.4. Therefore, it has been averred that this public interest litigation lacks bona fides and action has not been initiated within a reasonable time when no time limit is prescribed under the Act. That respondent No.2 has initiated action after inordinate delay and therefore, the same ought to be dismissed.

¶61

It is further averred that the initiation of action by respondent No.1/BBMP against respondent Nos.3 to 6 is at the instance of petitioner herein who has filed this public interest litigation in total violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 321 of the Act and hence, the said respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of the aforesaid pleadings in the statement of objections, respondent Nos.3 to 6 have filed the documents also.

¶62

-: 13 :-

¶63

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. D.R. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/BBMP Sri. V. Sreenidhi and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 Sri. Manmohan P.N. and perused the material on record.

¶64

During the course of submissions, it has been clearly indicated to us that respondent Nos.3 to 6 were the office bearers of the Residents' Welfare Association and had filed W.P.No.24668/2019 against H.S.Rukmini contending that she had put up construction on her site in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bye-law. That writ petition is pending consideration and the orders passed in that writ petition are the subject matter of the special leave petitions, which have been referred to above. The same has given rise to the present petition, which has been filed by the petitioner herein, who is stated to be a public spirited person as against respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein on the premise that respondent Nos.3 to 6 were the office bearers of the Residents' Welfare Association and they had been operating on a selective basis and targeting the people in the locality. But, the properties which are in their occupation have been built contrary to the building

¶65

-: 14 :-

¶66

bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. Paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of

¶67

the memorandum of writ appeal read as under:

¶68

"2. The respondents 3 to 6 are the so called office bearers of what is called as JP Nagar 4^th Phase, Dollors Layout Residents Welfare Association. These so called office bearers are operating on a selective basis targeting the people in the locality and initially getting notices issued to the BBMP and thereafter asking the residents to shell down amounts for not precipitating the matter. Though some of the residents have expressed such activities, they are not ready to come forward to file affidavits in this regard. These are the respondents who are occupying the properties within the said layout and the details of the properties which are occupied is as detailed in the table herein below:

¶69

Sl. No.	Respondent	Resident Details
1.	No.3	116, 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 4^TH PHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
2.	No.4	89, 3^RD MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 4^THPHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
3.	No.5	259/1, 7^TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 4^THPHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
5.	No.6	184, 4^THMAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 4^THPHASE, DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU.

¶70

-: 15 :-

¶71

The petitioner got applied under the RTI Act to find out if there are any plan sanction or at any rate if there are any occupancy certificate which is mandatory for the said respondents to occupy the premises. In respect of some of the office bearers, BBMP has given a clear reply that they do not have any copy of the plan sanction or the commencement certificate or the occupancy certificate issued in respect of the premises which has been occupied by these parties.

¶72

The petitioner has also informed the BBMP in this regard and in the interregnum, the petitioner was also informed that this Hon'ble Court had directed taking action against such persons who have occupied the premises without the occupancy certificate. The petitioner has also given representations to BBMP indicating that they have not taken any action in respect of these respondents who apparently do not have any commencement or occupancy certificates and they continue to occupy the premises. It also appears that BBMP had also issued notice under Section 308 in respect of some of the office bearers if not against the present respondents but even the same has not been taken to a logical conclusion. The copy of the response given to the RTI filed by the petitioner on dated 10.03.2020, is produced as Annexure-A . The copy of the representations dated 26.09.2020 is produced as Annexure-B to

¶73

B3 , and the copy of Section 308 notices which were issued are produced as Annexure-C to C2 .

¶74

-: 16 :-

¶75

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in strictly implementing the law, more particularly permitting the occupancy of the premises by the respondent 3 to 6 despite not having any plan sanctioned or occupancy certificate and having no other alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of the grievances urged in public interest, the present petition is filed on the following grounds."

¶76

13. In response to this, respondent Nos.3 to 6

¶77

have stated in their statement of objections as under:

¶78

"2. At the outset it is submitted that the instant writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of law and has been filed at the instance of one H.S. Rukmini and H.S.Venkatesh. The JP Nagar 4^th Phase Dollars layout residents welfare association filed W.P.No.24668/2019 before this Hon'ble court as against H.S. Rukmini in as much as said H.S. Rukmini had put up an unauthorized construction of residential cum commercial complex. The said association sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the BBMP to consider the representation of the association in light of the letter written by the assistant director town planning (South), BBMP dated 21.05.2019 addressed to the assistant executive engineer BBMP regarding the illegal construction. A copy of the Writ Petition is produced herewith as Annexure-R1 . In the said Writ Petition vide order dated 14.01.2020, this

¶79

-: 17 :-

¶80

Hon'ble court ordered that H.S. Rukmini is required to produce the certificate as contemplated under section 310 of the KMC act and that if on or before the next date the user of the building is not completely stopped and the building is vacated, the court proposes to appoint a senior police officer as court receiver to take forcible possession of the building after the dispossessing the persons found in possession. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-R2 . The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPL(Civil) dairy No.2139/2020 wherein the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by this Hon'ble court was stayed in so far as directing the handing over of possession of the building to the BBMP. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble court in W.P.No.24668/2019 also passed an order as against the office bearers of J.P.Nagar Dollars Layout Resident Welfare Association and by order dated 03.08.2020 this Hon'ble court directed the BBMP to take action in accordance with law if some of the office bearers of the J.P.Nagar Dollars Layout Resident Welfare Association are illegally occupying any premises without obtaining the certificate / permission in accordance with Section 310 of the Act. A copy of the said order dated 03.08.2020 is produced herewith as Annexure-R3 . The order dated 03.08.2020 has been challenged by the office bearers before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant an interim order directing the BBMP not to take any coercive steps.

¶81

-: 18 :-

¶82

From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the instant PIL lacks bonafides and on the contrary has been filed out of vengeance and as counterblast to the PIL filed by the JP Nagar 4^th Phase Dollars layout residents welfare association. In addition thereto the petition is hit by delay and latches. The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 obtained sanctioned plan from the BBMP/BDA and completed construction in the year 2008, 2013 and 2003 respectively and have been residing in the house along with their family ever since. Copies of the sanction plan obtained by the respondents are collectively produced herewith as Annexure-R4 . Now after lapse of more than more than a decade it is not open for the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble court alleging violations of the sanction plan. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

¶83

The respondents submit that the construction put up by private persons in their private property cannot be subject matter of PIL. Further the petitioner herein is not even a resident of JP Nagar. The relief sought for in the petition also disclose that the respondents herein have been selectively targeted. Hence the writ petition smacks of vengeance and there is no public interest whatsoever.

¶84

The Petitioner is residing at Kamalashri Anjanapura and on verification the respondents came to know that the house belongs to his father.

¶85

-: 19 :-

¶86

The photographs of the petitioner's house indicate that proper setbacks have not been left. Few photographs of the house of the petitions are produced herewith as Annexure-R5 . The petitioner himself having violated the building bye laws and sanction plan cannot raise his little finger against the respondents herein. Further the petitioner has failed to point out his credentials and what are the public spirited activities that he has undertaken till date. Mere statement that the petitioner is a public spirited person is not sufficient to entertain a Public Interest Litigation. The very fact that the petitioner is a resident of a different place and specifically makes allegations against the Respondents 3 to 6 leaves no room for doubt that the petition lacks bonafides and is motivated.

¶87

The respondents submit that this Hon'ble court passed an exparte order on 11.11.2020 directing the 1^st respondent to ascertain as to whether the allegations of violations made in the petition as regards the structures erected by the 3^rd to 6^th respondents are correct and if it is found to be in violation then the 1^st respondent was directed to state the proposed further action to be taken to this Hon'ble court. However, the 1^st respondent has proceeded to issue notice under Section 308 of the KMC Act dated 09.09.2020 calling upon the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to produce sanction plan and certain documents and referred to W.P.No.24668/2019. The 3^rd and 5^th respondent filed reply dated 14.09.2020 and the 6^th respondent

¶88

-: 20 :-

¶89

issued reply dated 12.09.2020 stating that they are not the petitioner nor respondent, nor the office bearers of JP Nagar Dollars Layout Resident Welfare Association at the time of filing W.P.No.24668/2019 and hence the respondents sought for the dismissal of proceedings against them.

¶90

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 26.11.2020 calling upon the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to produce sanction plan and certain documents and referred to W.P.No.12590/2020. The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 were not served with the notice from this Hon'ble court and as such the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 were not aware of the pendency of this writ petition. Hence the respondent Nos.3 and 5 issued reply dated 27.11.2020 and respondent 6 issued reply dated 29.11.2020 stating that they were not aware about the said case and called upon the 1^st respondent to explain as to why the notice was issued to them. Immediately thereafter the 1^st respondent issued provisional order dated 02.12.2020 and show cause notice dated 02.12.2020 under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act. Copies of the same are produced herewith as Annexures-R6, R7 and R8 . The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 vide letter dated 07.12.2020 sought for 10 days time to submit their reply. Copies of the letters are collectively produced herewith as Annexure-R9 . Thereafter the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 submitted their reply dated 10.12.2020 inter alia pointing out that

¶91

-: 21 :-

¶92

the notice lacks clarity and is as vague as it can be. Copies of the reply submitted by the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 are collectively produced herewith as Annexure-R10 . Thereafter surprisingly the 1^st respondent visited the property of the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 and when the said respondents tried to point out that the measurements were not being taken properly the 1^st respondent unilaterally rejected the request of the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 and proceeded to carry on with the measurements as per his whims and fancies.

¶93

Thereafter the 1^st respondent again issued provisional order dated 21.12.2020 and show cause notice under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act alleging violation of the sanctioned plan. A copy of the provisional order and show cause notice are collectively produced herewith as Annexures-R11, R12 and R13. The 1^st respondent has stated that the provisional order issued earlier has been withdrawn. The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 submitted their reply dated 29.12.2020 inter alia pointing out that the building was constructed more than twelve years, seven years, seventeen years ago respectively and at this juncture it is not open to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent to initiate action and that the 2^nd respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke Section 321 of the KMC Act. The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 also sought for an opportunity of personal hearing. Copies of the objections filed by the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 are collectively produced herewith as Annexure-

¶94

-: 22 :-

¶95

R14 . The respondent without even giving an opportunity of hearing and in a biased and arbitrary manner proceeded to pass the confirmation order dated 30.12.2020 under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. A copy of the said orders are collectively produced herewith as AnnexureR15 . The respondents have filed appeals before the KAT challenging the orders dated 30.12.2020.

¶96

The 4^th Respondent has obtained modified sanction plan on 16.06.2020. A copy of the same is produced herewith as Annexure-R16 . The 4^th respondent is putting up construction in accordance with the sanction plan and the construction is still not completed as such. Hence no notice has been issued to the 4^th respondent.

¶97

The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 completed construction in the year 2008, 2013 and 2003 respectively, and have been residing in the house along with their family ever since. Now after lapse of more than a decade it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is settled law that any action must be initiated within a reasonable time when no time limit is prescribed under the Act and in the instant case the 2^nd respondent has initiated action after inordinate delay and on the basis of the order passed in this writ petition.

¶98

The 2^nd respondent has shown great urgency in the matter of initiation of proceedings and has issued provisional order and show cause notice

¶99

-: 23 :-

¶100

dated 21.12.2020 under Section 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act, 1976 and confirmation order on 30.12.2020 knowing fully well that KMC Act was repealed by the BBMP Act 2020 on the very same date i.e., 21/12/2020."

¶101

On a reading of the same, what emerges is that the public interest litigation is being used as a means for ventilating private vendetta/vengeance without there being any public interest as such. This writ petition is a classic example of warfare through the medium of public interest litigation. The result of which is that, respondent Nos.1 and 2/BBMP, on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court while initiating action against respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein under Section 321 of the KMC Act have apparently violated the procedure contemplated under the said Act resulting in passing of orders under Section 321 (1) and (2) of the KMC Act, which are provisional in nature and ultimately the confirmatory order under Section 321 (3) of the KMC Act, which have been assailed by respondent Nos.3 to 6 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings. The detailed and thread-bearing reading of the pleadings in the writ petition do not in

¶102

-: 24 :-

¶103

anyway give an impression that the petitioner has filed this petition as a public spirited person and/or the parties of achieving any public interest whatsoever. The background to this petition is the filing of Writ Petition No.24668/2018 by the Welfare Association against one H.S.Rukmini. A copy of which is produced as Annexure - R3 to the writ petition. It is also contested by respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶104

It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 that respondent No.2 is now a Treasurer of the Welfare Association and was also Treasurer of the Association when W.P.No.24668/2019 was filed, but respondent Nos.4 to 6 were not office bearers of the Welfare Association when the said writ petition was filed. That they became office bearers of the said association subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.24668/2019. Therefore, it is their case that they have not targeted H.S.Rukmuni, who is the respondent in W.P.No.24668/2019, but the filing of the said writ petition has triggered the filing of the present writ petition. We also note that these are disputed questions as to whether respondent Nos.3 to 6 were office bearers of the respondent/Welfare Association when they filed

¶105

-: 25 :-

¶106

W.P.No.24668/2019. Even if for a moment, if it is to be assumed that they were, indeed, office bearers of respondent/Welfare Association, when the said writ petition was filed, that cannot be the basis for filing the present writ petition as has been clearly averred by the petitioner in paragraph No.2 of the memorandum of writ petition which have been extracted above.

¶107

In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others [(2010)3 SCC 402] . Paragraph No.181 of the said judgment is extracted for immediate reference, which reads as under:

¶108

"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

¶109

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶110

-: 26 :-

¶111

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

¶112

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶113

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶114

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶115

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain,

¶116

-: 27 :-

¶117

private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶118

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. "

¶119

On a perusal of the aforesaid pleadings, we hold that this petition, which is stated to be filed in public interest lacks public interest. The petitioner has not filed this writ petition as a public spirited person. In our view, the same is filed only on account of the filing of W.P.No.24668/2019. The petitioner, who is a youth of 28 years old is only a name-lender to the persons who have an hidden agenda. The petition lacks bona fides since during the pendency of the writ petition and on account of the ex parte interim order passed by this Court on 11/11/2020, which is extracted as under, action has been initiated by the respondent/BBMP as against respondent Nos.3 to 6:

¶120

"ORDER

¶121

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶122

-: 28 :-

¶123

Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 9th December, 2020.

¶124

In the meanwhile, we direct the first respondent to ascertain whether the allegations of violations made in the petition as regards the structures erected by the third to sixth respondents are correct. If it is found that there are illegalities associated with the said structures, the first respondent will state what action it proposes to take hereafter.

¶125

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to serve a soft copy of this petition along with a soft copy of this order at the email id of the first respondent. On receiving the soft copy of the petition and the soft copy of this order, the first respondent will be under an obligation to appear before the Court."

¶126

Against which, the appeals have been filed by them before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The same would have to be considered and adjudicated in accordance with law. Also interim orders have been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But since in our view, this writ petition is not filed in public interest and is only an instance of abuse of the process of this Court. This writ petition has to be viewed in the background of W.P.No.24668/2019. Thus viewed, we do not think that there is any need to consider

¶127

-: 29 :-

¶128

the same any further. The writ petition is dismissed with cost.

¶129

At this stage, learned counsel Sri

¶130

D.R.Ravishankar submitted that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood as a driver and therefore, he may be saved from imposition of any cost.

¶131

18. Since we have already held that the petitioner

¶132

is only a name-lender and taking into consideration his circumstances and avocation, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed. The same shall be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶133

Sd/JUDGE

¶134

Sd/JUDGE

¶135

Sri Keshav Vajapayam v. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Keshav Vajapayam v. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Smt.Dr. Sphoorthi Basavannaiah Vs Sri Arjun Raj B

Mr. Yathiraj P R Vs Sindushree (Lakshmi)

Smt. G. Geetha Vs Sri. Lokesh @ Munianjinappa

Smt. Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Royal Education Society Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Shilpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner