11-Yr Yawning Gap: Karnataka HC Imposes 10K Cost On Former BJP Corporator's PIL Against Waste Plant Development Rights To Private Persons

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by a former municipal corporator and BJP leader NR Ramesh, who had claimed that grant of developmental rights to private persons in lieu of land, for establishing a garbage wastage plant, had resulted in corrupt practice.

In doing so the court noted that the plea was filed after over a decade since the order concerning the transferable development rights was passed. Terming it a "yawning gap of eleven years" the court said that it points to lack of bona fides on the petitioner's part and also imposed cost of Rs 10,000. 

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind in its order said, “Apart from the above aspects, a weighty consideration because of which the Court would not entertain the present public interest petition is that it seeks to raise challenge to the Government Order after a gap of eleven years. The order was passed on 03.01.2013 for special purpose as above and the transferable development rights were given in that connection. The yawning gap of eleven years itself smacks lack of bona fide on part of the petitioner. In the pleadings, not a whisper is found about the delay in instituting such a petition after eleven years. In any view, the Court would not entertain the public interest petition filed after more than a decade, even otherwise, it does not found to be containing any merit". 

"Leaving it however, with strong deprecation, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority," the bench added. 

The petition had prayed for calling records from authorities regarding the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land at Kodiyala Karenahalli Village, Ramanagara Taluka where the land is to be utilised for disposal of garbage purpose.

The TDR was granted as per order dated January 3, 2013 passed by the Urban Development Department of the State Government for establishment of Wastage Treatment Plant of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Further it was prayed to direct the authorities to withdraw the concession given and to initiate an inquiry in respect of the land acquisition process.

It was argued that the respondent without following the law, wrongfully benefited certain private persons–respondent Nos.8 to 11 by giving the TDR in their favour, thereby causing huge loss to the State exchequer including to the taxpayers.

On the other hand the government advocate submitted that the relaxation in the conditions in the Notification dated January 18, 2006 was contemplated at that time when Bengaluru was witnessing fast development. It was with a view to setting up the garbage wastage plant, the state said. 

Moreover, the locus standi of the petitioner is to be viewed with suspicion as the petitioner was leader of the political party, also a Councillor in the BBMP who did not raise his voice during his councillorship, the state said. However, at a later stage he filed the petition, it added.

On going through the record the court said, “The reading of the petition shows that general allegations are made that the grant of developmental rights has resulted into corrupt practice”. 

The court noted that it appeared from the 2013 government order and the preceding Minutes of the Proceedings of the state government that certain lands were identified and the Commissioner, BBMP had submitted proposal to the State Government for approval of the land for acquisition under the TDR scheme. The exercise was intended and was undertaken for specific purpose of establishment of Wastage Treatment Plant, the court said. 

Referring to the government order the bench said, “...It was thus for the special purpose of setting up the wastage treatment plant of the BBMP that certain conditions which were mentioned in Notification dated 18.01.2006 came to be relaxed and the Government Order dated 03.01.2013 was issued.”

The court also deprecated the conduct of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), noting that the body appeared through its advocate "voluntarily" and submissions were advanced in "conflicting tenor" with the stand which was taken by the State Government.

Taking note of the same the court said, “This aspect became indicative to suggest that the petition might be a collusive attempt to misutilise the public interest jurisdiction. The conduct and stand taken by the BBMP, in appearing without notice and proceeding to make elaborate submissions, contrary to the state's stand was incomprehensible. The proposal for the garbage plant was mooted by BBMP itself.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Ramesh N R AND Chief Secretary & Others

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate D. Aswathappa

Counsel for State: Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6-BBMP: Advocate N.R. Jagadeeswara 

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 475

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25078 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order