MOHAMAD ALI KARNACHI AND SRI. BASAVARAJ CHIDANAND SADANI Vs. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed by two petitioners as public interest litigation, on the factual premise that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely, Hubli -Dharwad Municipal Corporation and Urban Development Authority have, by virtue of resolution dated 29.06.2007, approved the/layout plan of one Sri. Arun Charanthimath, reserving plot Nos. 49 and 82 for park and playground respectively. Thereafter, resolution dated 28.07.2011 is passed by Hubli -Dharwad Mahanagara Palike, resolving by Resolution No. 800 that plot Nos. 82 and 49 which had been reserved for park/public playground and for forming stadium under the infrastructure scheme may be used for constructing a park, after taking into account several factors and representations mentioned in the resolution. Challenging that resolution of the institution of local self government, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing that resolution, and in support of such prayer, the petitioners have made several averments on facts, which are by and large denied on behalf of the respondents by filing detailed statements of objections. Several motives are attributed to the respondents by the petitioners and vice versa. It is, however, maintained on behalf of the petitioners and repeated in the arguments that they are not having any personal interest in the matter, nor are they directing any efforts against any individual or group of residents of the area. As far as validity of the impugned resolution dated 28.07.2011 of Hubli -Dharwad Mahanagara Palike is concerned, the only argument on behalf of the petitioners was that, while taking all the relevant factors into consideration, the Mayor ought not to have tilted the balance in favour of constructing the park at the premises in question by casting his decisive vote, which ought to have been exercised reasonably and on relevant considerations.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1902 to submit that claim and plea of the inhabitants of a locality whose facility was being converted could not be silenced for want of locus standi, if they were espousing cause of a public nature. Residents of a locality seeking protection and maintenance of the environment of their locality cannot be said to be busy -bodies and even otherwise physical or personal or economic injury may give rise to any civil or criminal action. It was, however, fairly conceded that no illegality or violation of any provision of law could be cited in support of the plea that the impugned resolution has to be set aside. On perusal of the various statements of objections filed on behalf of the respondents and the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it is clear that not only motives are attributed to each other by the parties, but there are questions of disputed facts, even as regards the utility and utilization of the open area. It was clear at the end of the arguments for the petitioners that no illegality could be attributed to challenge the impugned resolution of the institution of local self government run by the representatives of the people. As observed in the aforesaid judgment itself, "violation of rule of law either by ignoring or affronting individual or action of the executive in disregard of the provisions of law raises substantial issue of accountability of those entrusted with responsibility of the administration". Such violation of any rule or provision of law may, in a given case, furnish enough cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach this Court by way of writ petition and the authorities may not be permitted to seek shelter of technicalities of locus standi. However, in the facts of the present case as seen earlier, admittedly no illegality in making of the impugned resolution could be pointed out and judicial and judicious restraint is required to be exercised when the Court is called. upon to interfere with such resolution or decision of the institution of local self government, where the people concerned including public spirited persons like the petitioners have direct access to their representatives in -charge of the administration. Therefore, the petitions for the relief prayed therein are not required to be entertained and accordingly dismissed, along with the interim application made therein, with no order as to cost.