B H VEERESHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third writ petition filed challenging the construction of a multistoried commercial-cum-parking complex at the junction of KG. Road-B. V. K lyengar Road, Bangalore. This place is situated in the busy majestic area on the K. G. Road at the heart of Bangalore. There is no sufficient place to provide parking space on the road. With the fast growth of Bangalore city in recent years there has been tremendous demand for parking space in the City. In order to provide parking space on the roads the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the corporation') has taken several projects providing for multistoried car parking facilities. After giving wide publicity in the Global Investors Meet held in 2000 the Corporation issued brochures to the general public and this is one such project offered for investors. The project envisaged construction of basement, ground and three upper floors, for providing parking space for more than 400 cars. Out of the total constituted area the Corporation would get 83% of the super built up area and 17% would belong to the developers. The State Government accorded approval to the project in question. M/s. Maharaja Buildtech-the fourth respondent herein was the successful bidder. After obtaining the change of land use, sanctioned plan and licence, they have put up the multistoried commercial-cum-parking complex. He has delivered 83% of the super built up area to the Corporation and 17% of which is his share he has put up shops.

(2.) THE approval of the Government for this project was challenged in a public interest litigation in W. P. No. 25716 of 2002 which came to be dismissed. It is thereafter, the fourth respondent was granted the contract to put up the constructions by entering into a joint venture agreement dated 6-3-2002. The Government Order and this joint venture agreement was challenged in public interest by filing W. P. No. 34890 of 2001 which also came to be dismissed on 23-1-2002. The present writ petition is filed contending that, before awarding the contract there was no wide publicity. Tenders were not invited in terms of the Karnataka Transparency in Public procurements Act, 1999. The construction made is contrary to the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act, 1976 and Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. An amount of Rs. 45 lakhs by way of stamp duty has been evaded. It is alleged that during the course of the construction the builder has encroached upon the footpath area, demolished public urinals and has installed transformer on the footpath.

(3.) THE Corporation Commissioner was directed to inspect the site in question and find out whether there is any encroachment on the footpath. He visited the place in the presence of the petitioner and measurements were taken in his presence and he has filed an affidavit along with photographs stating that there is no encroachment of the footpath by the builder.