M/S. HALGO ADS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the fourth respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore Urban Zone at Annexure - 'A' to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to erect the advertisement hoardings and to complete the balance work with regard to advertisement hoardings. Secondly, the petitioner is seeking for permission to display the advertisement in the said hoardings. The brief facts are that the petitioner who claims to be a member of the Karnataka Dalitha Industries Federation had enrolled with the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has sought permission with regard to erecting the advertisement hoarding. The permission was granted in favour of the petitioner vide the order dated 24.01.2013 at Annexure - 'E' to the petition. One of the hoardings permitted thereto is on the banks of Hebbal lake. The petitioner, in that regard had commenced work and also had erected the advertisement hoarding. By the subsequent Corrigendum dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure - 'F'), the hoarding to be, erected on the banks of Hebbal lake was increased to four. When the petitioner had commenced the work and had also erected the skeleton of the advertisement hoarding, the petitioner was issued with the communication dated 01.08.2013 impugned at Annexure - 'A' to the petition. By the said communication, the Deputy Conservator of Forest had referred to a communication issued by the seventh respondent herein raising objections with regard to the hoarding being erected on the banks of Hebbal lake. The petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

(2.) THE seventh respondent - Lake Development Authority has filed its objection statement. The seventh respondent states in the objection statement that no specific direction had been issued to the Deputy Conservator of Forest to take up the issue with the petitioner. However, the seventh respondent is guided by the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 817/2008 and connected petitions disposed of on 1.04.2012 and the directions that have been issued therein on taking note of a report submitted by Hon'ble Justice N.K. Patil Committee. In that regard, it is contended that in any event, the BBMP or the other respondents could not have permitted erecting of hoardings in the lake development area.

(3.) ON the other hand even if the said letter is quashed, the stand adopted by the seventh respondent would still be relevant for consideration. Therefore, keeping that in view, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the Annexures produced along with the petition to contend that when the BBMP had permitted the petitioner and the petitioner had paid the advertisement tax in that regard, no such objection had been raised, it cannot be in dispute that though the BBMP is the Authority to issue permission to advertise, the land wherein the hoarding is to be installed would become relevant. Keeping in perspective that the Lake Development authority has jurisdiction, that would have to permit the same. Therefore, if this is kept in view, the seventh respondent, in any event would have to consider the request of the petitioner and then come to a conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law as to whether the hoarding sought to be put up by the petitioner is permissible.