MANJUNATH BADI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to be a public spirited person has presented this writ petition seeking the quashment of agreements dtd. 1/6/2022, 3/9/2022 and 19/9/2022 along with the cost estimates. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.9 to 11 "to take immediate steps to stop the illegal construction of a multi-storeyed building being put up the respondent Nos.5 and 8 on a Government land." and to direct "the concerned Authorities to initiate respective Departmental Enquiries" against respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the land in question belongs to the Government, the 7th respondent - Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) could not have undertaken the construction activity without the Sanctioned Plans and Building Licence/Permission. He also adds that such a huge project in question could have been awarded to the respondent KRIDL without following the procedure prescribed by the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999.

(2.) On request, learned Additional Government Advocate having accepted notice for the official respondents opposes the petition contending that the same lacks in public interest; the construction is for the purpose of establishing offices and quarters of the Forest Department, which is a dire requirement because of forestation and such other allied activities being escalated. The petitioner has to show that there is any legal requirement of securing a Sanctioned Plan or a Building Licence by the Government for putting structures in its property. She also points out the Government Orders that exempt the project in question from provisions of 1999 Act. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. We have perused the petition papers. We decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the official respondents. Admittedly, the property belongs to the Government; the purpose of the project is to erect structures for the offices and quarters of the Forest Department which is a part of the Government. Such a project cannot be said to be lacking in public interest. In fact, the enormity of public interest lying in the project in question outways any arguable interest which the petitioner seeks to but failed to demonstrate as being paramount. His first submission that this project could not have been undertaken without following the provisions of 1999 Act is bit difficult to countenance. The learned Additional Government Advocate is right in drawing our attention to the Government Notification dtd. 7/9/2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H, issued under Sec. 4(g) of the 1999 Act whereby, the project in question is exempted from the usual procedure of public tender. This exemption notification obviously is not put in challenge.