IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

Transcription

1 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION NO.7681/2011 (GM-KLA) THE CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. BY ITS SECRETARY CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE 112, JC ROAD BANGALORE PETITIONER (BY SRI N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI 2. THE LOKAYUKTA STATE OF KARNATAKA MS BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI REP BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KP WEST BANGALORE

2 THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE 5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT ALI ASKER ROAD 6. SRI VIKRAM SIMHA SON OF LATE NANJUNDAIAH 55 YEARS, NO.197, 11 TH CROSS 3 RD MAIN, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BANGALORE C.N.MANJUNATH S/O NARASHIMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RTI ACTIVIST R/A NO.40 D, 9 TH CROSS CANARA BANK LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R-1 & R-5; SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA G, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI I.G.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI NITISH K.N FOR SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI M.SHIVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-7; NOTICE TO R-6 HELD SUFFICIENT V/C/O DATED ) WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT DATED PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J. WP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3 - 3 - H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): O R D E R 1. In this writ petition, the Canara Bank Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, is challenging the report dated (Annexure-J) given by the Lokayukta under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ( the Act ). Operative portion of the report reads as follows: Hence, this report is given under Section 12(1) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act to the Competent Authority to take further action as follows; (i) the Competent Authority shall direct the Commissioner, BDA to withdraw the permission issued (approval accorded during March 2008) to the Modified Layout Plan in Sy.No.191/1A, 191/B, 191/2(P) etc. of Kodigehalli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of the Canara Bank Employees Co-operative Housing Society. (ii) the Competent Authority shall also direct the Commissioner, BDA to initiate action against the Secretary, Canara Bank Employees Co-operative Housing Society for the violations carried out in the plan, approved during (iii) To direct the Commissioner, BBMP to cause the cancellation of the khathas of the sites, which are not in accordance with the layout plan approved by the BDA, during 1998 and which are not released by the BDA. (iv) The Competent Authority shall take steps to implement this report within one month from the date of receipt of this report and shall intimate or cause to be intimated the action taken in this regard, as provided under Sec.12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. Respondent no.6 though served with the notice of the petition has remained absent.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Lokayukta has given mandatory directions in the impugned report which is not permissible under Section 12(1) of the Act. He submitted that under Section 12(1) of the Act, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta can only recommend to the concerned Competent Authority to redress or remedy the grievance in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report, and no mandatory directions can be given. Therefore, he submitted that the report is unsustainable in law. He further submitted that the modification granted to the layout plan by the Bangalore Development Authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, He also submitted that modification of a layout plan is permissible so long as ownership of roads, drains, water supply mains and open spaces laid out in the layout plan is not transferred to the authority as contemplated under Section 32(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, He submitted that this aspect has not been examined by the Lokayukta, and therefore, the report of the Lokayukta is not correct. Lastly, he submitted that the Lokayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint as

5 - 5 - alternative remedies were available to the complainant. He referred to a decision of this Court in K.A.Prabhakar v B.D.A., Bangalore [1999(2) Kar.L.J. 555] in support of his submission that modification of a layout plan is permissible in law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3- Bangalore Development Authority submitted that the modification granted to the layout plan is in accordance with law. Learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1 & 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 supported the impugned report of the Lokayukta. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, after vesting of roads, drains, water supply mains and open spaces laid out in the layout plan with the BDA, no modification of the layout plan is permissible in law. In this context, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Residents of Mico Layout v J.S.S. Mahavidya Peetha [1997(4) Kar.L.J. 442]. 6. Having regard to the directions in the report, which are extracted above, we accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report given by

6 - 6 - the Lokayukta under Section 12(1) of the Act is mandatory and not recommendatory. In our opinion, the report is in the nature of an order which is not permissible under Section 12(1) of the Act. In this context, it is appropriate to notice Section 12(1) & (2) of the Act, which reads as follows: 12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the Competent Authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. (2) The Competent Authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta the action taken on the report.. (Underlining supplied) 7. The impugned report which is mandatory in nature has affected the legal right of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the report. 8. It is relevant to state that the Lokayukta has not examined as to whether modification of the layout plan was permissible in law or not.

7 In our opinion, as the report is mandatory and not recommendatory, and as the Lokayukta has not examined, whether modification of the layout plan was permissible in law or not, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Lokayukta. Accordingly, we make the following order: The report of the Lokayukta dated is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Lokayukta for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- JUDGE hkh. Sd/- JUDGE