SRI S R AMIR JAN V. THE COMMISSIONER

WP/6346/2016

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri. S.R. Amir Jan against the Commissioner and other officials of the BBMP, challenging an allegedly illegal construction by the 5th respondent. The petitioner claimed to have a locus standi based on his status as a senior citizen and an income-tax assessee residing in Bangalore. However, the court found that the petitioner did not reside near the construction site and thus did not have the necessary standing to file the writ. The court also pointed out that the petitioner had not adequately pursued his grievances through the appropriate channels under the Right to Information Act before approaching the court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726949 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, KMC Act 1976, Right to Information Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B S GAUTHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: BASAVARAJAPPA
• Keywords: Extraordinary jurisdiction; Illegal construction; Locus standi; Right to Information; Misconceived writ petition

Judgement Text

" 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF JULY 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.6346/2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. S.R. AMIR JAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O LATE RAZAK SAB R/AT. #203, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD 3RD FLOOR, “SUNSHINE APARTMENTS” NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D.R, ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER B.B.M.P. N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE BBMP, 16TH MAIN ROAD B.T.M. 1ST PHASE, BBMP, BANGALORE – 560 029. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (SOUTH) OFFICE OF THE BBMP N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL KARNATAKA STATE FIRE & EMERGENCE SERVICES No.1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 042. 5. SRI. MOHAMMED JARED @ ANSAR, 45 YRS R/AT. 13, “A1 RESIDENCE AYAPPA GARDEN, 1ST CROSS ADUGODI, WARD No.63, LAKSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. GAUTHAM, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) Sri. S.R. Amir Jan Vs The Commissioner & Ors. 2/4 Date of Order 4.7.2016 W.P.No.6346/2016 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO TAKE ACTION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER KMC ACT 1976 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING No.13, A1 RESIDENCE, AYAPPA GARDEN, 1ST CROSS ADUGODI, WARD No.63, LAKSANDRA, BANGALORE. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Mr. Basavarajappa D.R. Adv. for Petitioner Mr. B.S. Gautham, Adv. for Respondents 1 to 3 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the purportedly illegal construction raised by the 5th respondent. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition, the petitioner claims his locus-standi to file this writ petition claiming that, “petitioner is a senior citizen, Income-tax assessee, permanent resident of Bangalore and hence, he had a locus-standi to file this writ petition”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that despite filing application to the Authorities of the respondent-BBMP under the Right to Information Act, 2005, no proper response was given to him and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way Sri. S.R. Amir Jan Vs The Commissioner & Ors. 3/4 Date of Order 4.7.2016 W.P.No.6346/2016 of present writ petition seeking appropriate direction against the 5th respondent by the Authorities of the respondent-BBMP. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain this writ petition. He is admittedly not living in the neighbourhood to the impugned construction of 5th respondent. The law envisages and fastens responsibility upon the respondent-BBMP itself to take suitable action, if any illegal construction has been raised without proper sanctioned plan by them and the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of the vague averments that since the petitioner is a senior citizen and Income-tax assessee and living in Bengaluru, any such construction raised within the city limits under the control of BBMP, he can be permitted to question. Without there being any adequate material placed on record by the petitioner, this Court cannot look into these kind of complaints in the writ jurisdiction. Merely Sri. S.R. Amir Jan Vs The Commissioner & Ors. 4/4 Date of Order 4.7.2016 W.P.No.6346/2016 because the petitioner was supplied the requisite information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, there are remedies of appellate forums in that Act to be availed by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is found to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Copy be sent to the BBMP forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. "