Karnataka High Court
M B Anirudh vs Medical Officer (Health) on 21 March, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.12692 OF 2014 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. M.B.ANIRUDH
S/O MR. M.V.BHUJANGA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NO.6, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
2. AMIT KUMAR GOYAL
S/O MR.ANIL KUMAR GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO.9, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
3. M.S.RAGHUNANDAN
S/O MR.M.V.SRINIVASA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O NO.8/1, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.R.TEJAS, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
2
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (SOUTH),
PADMANABAHANAGAR R
ANGE/YEDIYUR WARD
NEAR SONATA SOFTWARE,
9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANASHANKARI REFERRAL HOUSE,
27TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. M/S. SOUTH THINDIES
A DARSHINI,
BUSINESS AT: NO.10,
S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
OWNER/PROPRIETOR:
MR.B.M.DHANANJAYA.
4. MRS.M.LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE MR.PILLAPPA,
MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN,
R/O NO.10, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI M.KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI VENKATESH R.BHAGATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
LETTER DT. 9.1.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE R-1
VIDE ANNX-Q; DIRECT THE R-1 TO CANCEL AND/OR REVOKE THE
TRADE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 22.12.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
"A. Quash the letter dated 09-01-2014 bearing reference
No.DHO(S)/PNN/PR/194/2012-13 issued to the
petitioners by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-Q.
A1. Quash the order dated 30-04-2014 bearing reference
No.AA(D)/PR/18/14-15 passed by the 1st and 2nd
respondents vide Annexure-Z.
B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent
to cancel and/or revoke the trade licence issued to
the 3rd respondent.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Declare that the licence granted in favour of
respondent No.3 is illegal and inoperative.
C. Grant such other reliefs including the code of this
writ petition in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel Sri S.R.Tejas appearing for the
petitioners, learned counsel Sri H.Devendrappa appearing for
respondents 1 and 2, learned counsel Sri M.Krishnappa
appearing for respondent No.3 and learned counsel Sri
Venkatesh R.Bhagath appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioners claim to be residents of S.Kariyappa Road,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru for over 15 years. The 3rd respondent
M/s South Thindies, a walk-in restaurant, involved in the
service of food and catering, is carrying on its business at No.
10, S.Kariyappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The premises
in which the 3rd respondent runs walk-in restaurant is owned by
the 4th respondent. The genesis of the business of the 3rd
respondent is by way of an application for grant of trade licence
to operate the walk-in restaurant on 17-12-2011. The
jurisdictional Health Officer who was then empowered to grant
trade licence grants it on the aforesaid date pursuant to which,
the 3rd respondent began his business in the name and style of
'South Thindies'.
4. Alleging that the business activities of the 3rd
respondent are hampering daily activities of the petitioners and
other owners of houses in the locality, they registered a
complaint with the 2nd respondent/Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) on 26-11-2011. When no
action was taken on the complaint it was reiterated on 16-08-
2012. The gist of the allegations in both the complaints is as
follows:
The operation of the 3rd respondent starts its
Darshini from around 5 a.m.-5:15 a.m. and ends by
11:45 p.m.-12:00 a.m.
The cooking vessels, plates and other equipments are
washed from about 5 a.m. which cause extreme
disturbance to the petitioners being the immediate
residents as the noise caused by the washing of
vessels is extremely loud and unbearable.
The 3rd respondent runs a high power consuming
and extremely noisy exhaust pipe for its kitchen from
7:30 a.m. to 10:35-10:45 p.m.
The 3rd respondent has installed a high capacity
diesel generator on the top of the building which
generates extreme noise when turned on. Thereby
causing lot of disturbance to the petitioners.
The 3rd respondent allows its customers to take food
outside and eat. Due to the said freedom the
customers make a mess of the surroundings by
spilling food.
The customers after consuming food leave their
plates as and where they please. Most of the times
the customers leave the used plates in front of the
petitioners houses thereby causing lot of disgust to
the petitioners and curtailing their free movement.
Further to that the customers wash their hands in
the plate thereby making a mess of the plate and its
surroundings. The 3rd respondent does not bother to
clear the plates instantly but takes its own time to
clear the plates.
The 3rd respondent has not provided adequate
dustbins. Furthermore, the dustbins are kept on the
footpath.
The 3rd respondent has installed tea/coffee stall
protruding to the footpath. The customers are
allowed to carry their cups to the footpath. Most of
the customers light their cigarettes and smoke
drinking their cup of tea/coffee.
The 3rd respondent does not stop them from lighting
their cigarettes and smoking. The 3rd respondent has
not made a complaint to the law and order police till
date. Thereby the petitioners are suffering by
inhaling the smoke continuously.
The 3rd respondent allows its customers to park their
vehicles arbitrarily. In view of the same, the
customers park their vehicles in front of the
petitioners house, thereby curtailing their right of
way and movement.
The 3rd respondent refuses to take any measure to
stop its customers from parking haphazardly.
5. It is the claim of the petitioners that on persistent
complaints being registered against the 3rd respondent, the 1st
and 2nd respondents/BBMP issued a notice on 23-08-2012 to
remedy grievances of the petitioners and others. A notice was
issued to the 3rd respondent to appear before the 1st respondent,
to which 3rd respondent did not respond. Further
representations were given by the petitioners to several other
authorities as well, with regard to environment pollution, law
and order, traffic, on all the grievances that the petitioners had.
The Environmental Officer conducted a survey and reported that
noise pollution was within the permissible limit. This, according
to the petitioners, was conducted on non-working hours at the
time when there was no pollution. The petitioners then knocked
the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.50660-662 of 2013
seeking a direction at the hands of this Court to the BBMP to
revoke the trade licence inter alia. This Court by its order dated
21-11-2013 disposed of the writ petition by the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing
the matter for some time, submits that the petitions may
be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to give
separate representations to three of the respondents
herein, namely the Medical Officer (Health), Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the Assistant Director of
Town Planning (South) and the Environmental Officer,
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, in respect of
their grievances. I find no legal impediment to grant the
prayer. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to
give representations to respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 in
respect of their grievances. If the petitioners give
representations to the aforesaid respondents within two
weeks from today, the aforesaid respondents shall
consider the same in accordance with law and initiate
appropriate action warranted in law, expeditiously and
in any event, within four weeks from the date of receipt
of the representation. The petitioners shall furnish a
copy of this order along with their representation to
respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 to enable them to take action in
the matter in accordance with law within the time
stipulated above. If they fail to take action in the matter
in accordance with law, within the time stipulated
above, the petitioners are at liberty to move this Court
on the contempt side."
This Court directed that in the event representations are given
by the petitioners within two weeks from 21-11-2013 the BBMP
would consider the same and pass appropriate orders within
four weeks thereafter. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to
approach this Court by filing a contempt petition in the event
the BBMP would not pass any order.
6. The petitioners on the strength of the aforesaid order
submitted their representation on 4-12-2013 again indicating all
the illegalities in the grant of trade licence and functioning of the
3rd respondent, pursuant to which, the Environmental Officer
again inspected the property of the 4th respondent on
30-12-2013 and indicated that there were in fact some
discrepancies with regard to both noise and air pollution. The
report clearly indicates that noise pollution was beyond the
permissible decibel. After the said spot inspection the petitioners
again gave representation to the BBMP complaining that the
entire building was illegal and unauthorized as it was
constructed in complete violation of building plan and without
issuance of any occupancy certificate the 4th respondent had
occupied the premises and rented it out to the 3rd respondent for
running a restaurant. The petitioners gave a detailed
representation to the Competent Authority. When no action was
taken on the representations, the petitioners have knocked the
doors of this Court again in the subject writ petition seeking the
afore-quoted prayer.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the residents of the locality, more particularly, the
petitioners who abut the property of the 4th respondent in which
the restaurant of the 3rd respondent is being run, are subjected
to grave nuisance only because the trade licence is granted by
the BBMP without even looking into parameters of such grant
and the building itself is constructed in violation of building bye-
laws of the BBMP. The 3rd respondent is running his business
without at the outset BBMP granting occupancy certificate to the
4th respondent to occupy or rent it out to the 3rd respondent.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the BBMP would seek to justify that the BBMP has been diligent
in issuing notices to the 3rd respondent on the alleged violation.
He would place on record certain documents - provisional order
dated 25-06-2012, confirmatory order dated 6-07-2012, the
order passed under Section 462 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) and the order passed
by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal setting aside all those
notices by its order dated 11-06-2015 and would therefore,
contend that the BBMP cannot be said to be a silent spectator
on the complaints of the petitioners and the like.
9. The learned counsel representing 3rd and 4th
respondents would however seek to justify their action of
occupying the premises and letting out the premises for running
a restaurant.
10. The learned counsel representing the BBMP would
submit that the BBMP had in fact passed certain orders upon
the grievances of the petitioners, all of which, have been
complied with and there is no noise or air pollution generated by
the 3rd respondent. He would submit that it is since 10 years
that the 3rd respondent is running the restaurant physically in a
residential locality but in a semi commercial zone where running
of the restaurant is permitted.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
12. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and
therefore, not reiterated. It is not in dispute that the petitioners
are neighbours of the property of the 4th respondent in which the
3rd respondent runs a restaurant. Complaints against running
of the restaurant were registered not once or twice but thrice
with the BBMP. It appears that the BBMP on the basis of the
said complaints had issued notices and passed orders under
Section 321 of the Act. The complaints were registered by the
petitioners on 26-11-2011, 16-08-2012 and 27-08-2012. On the
basis of the first complaint itself or even without any complaint,
the BBMP issued notice upon the 4th respondent, owner of the
property. The provisional order under Section 321(1) of the Act
reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ PÁ®A 321 (1)
gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ
AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 167 (ºÀ¼É ªÁqïð £ÀA.59)
§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr, J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.10 (ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀASÉå 06) gÀ°è
²æêÀÄw.®°vÀªÀÄä, gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹zÀÄÝ, §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (zÀQët)
EªÀjAzÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw J¯ï.¦.¸ÀASÉå 495/08-09. ¢£ÁAPÀ
15/06/2009 gÀ°è ºÁ° EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁtÂdå / ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀzÀ
ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðrzÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 167 (ºÀ¼Éà ªÁqïð £ÀA 59)
§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr, J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.10 (ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀASÉå 06) gÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ
ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀPÉëUÉ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ
1976 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʯÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ
¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976
gÀ CqÀAiÀÄ°è gÀavÀªÀVgÀĪÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʯÁUÀ½UÉƼÀ¥ÀqÀĪÀAvÉ
C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ ºÁ° EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉqÀ« ºÁQ ºÉƸÀzÁV
ªÁºÀ£À ¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ, DzÀgÉ ªÁºÀ£À ¤®ÄUÀqÉ
¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ªÀÄÆA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÁtÂdå ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÉ.JA.¹ PÁAiÉÄÝUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀ£ÀÆä®PÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV
¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà PÉqÀ« ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ DzÉò¹zÉ.
«ªÀgÀ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ
EzÀjAzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀPÉëUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV
PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï
PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ CrAiÀÄ°è gÀavÀªÁVgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀ
¤ªÀiÁðt ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʯÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÁÝgÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±À ºÁUÀÆ «ªÀgÀUÀ½AzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ
AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 167 (ºÀ¼Éà ªÁqïð £ÀA.59) §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr,
J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.10 (ºÀ¼É ¸ÀASÉå 06) gÀ°è PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ
£ÀPÉëUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ
¤AiÀĪÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉʯÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ
¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976
CzÀgÀrAiÀÄ°è gÀavÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ
¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà PÉqÀ« ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ DzÉò¹zÉ.
CzÀ®èzÉ, F vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß KPÉ ¹ÜjÃPÀj¸À¨ÁgÀzÉA§ÄzÀPÉÌ ¤ªÀÄä
¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ K¼ÀÄ ¢£ÀUÉƼÀUÁV
¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ°è
CxÀªÁ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£ÀPÀgÀªÁV®è¢zÀÝ°è F
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ¥Áðn£ÉÆA¢UÉ
¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À®Ä ¤ÃªÀÅ
§zÀÞgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
In terms of the afore-quoted provisional order the BBMP
indicated to the 4th respondent that the building constructed
was in violation of law and order under Section 321(2) was also
issued on 25-06-2012. The said order reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ PÁ®A 321 (2)À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ
§ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 167 gÀ (ºÀ¼É
ªÁqïð 59) §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr, J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.10 (ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀASÉå 06)gÀ°è
²æêÀÄw.®°vÀªÀÄä, gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁtÂdå, ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀnÖzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ §ÈºÀvï
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ
(zÀQët) EªÀjAzÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw J¯ï.¦.¸ÀASÉå 495/08-09. ¢£ÁAPÀ
15/06/2009 gÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt
ªÀiÁqÀzÉà §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¨ÉʯÁUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥À¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
G®èAX¹ PÀlÖqÀ PÀnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:
¸À.PÁ.¤.C/©.J¸ï.PÉ/¦.N/10/12-13. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-06-2012 gÀ°è w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
F DzÉñÀPÉÌ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¨ÉʯÁUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV
PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ
»A¨sÁUÀzÀ ºÁ° EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉqÀ« ºÁQ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÁºÀ£À
¤®ÄUÀqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÁtÂdå ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
£ÀqɸÀĪÀAvÉ w¼ÀĸÀÄvÁÛ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976gÀ «¢ü
321(1)gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976gÀ «¢ü 321(2)gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ
ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ F ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÀ°è F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß eÁjUÉƽ¸À®Ä
¸ÀzÀj C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ «¢ü 462 gÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ PÁ£ÀƤ£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀAvÉ, ¤ªÀÄä
«gÀÄzÀÝ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ."
A statement showing deviation against the sanctioned plan was
also appended to the order under Section 321(2). The deviation
was to the tune of 43% in the construction of the building and
42.95% insofar as it concerned set back. Based upon the said
violation Section 321(3) order was also passed on 6-07-2012.
The said order reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ PÁ®A 321 (3)
¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ
¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:10 (ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀASÉå 06), gÀ°è ²æêÀÄw.®°vÀªÀÄä,
ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (zÀQët),
EªÀjAzÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw J¯ï.¦.¸ÀASÉå:495/08-09.
¢£ÁAPÀ:15/06/2009gÀ°è ºÁ° EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁtÂdå / ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀzÀ
ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðrvÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀASÉå: 10 (ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀASÉå 06),
J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå: 167 (ºÀ¼ÉÃ
ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 59)gÀ°è PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀPÉëUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞ,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¨ÉʯÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉ.JA.¹ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®A 321
(1) & (2)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¦.N ¸ÀASÉå ¸À.PÁ.¤.C/§.±ÀA/ªÁqïð
167/¦.N/10/12-13. ¢£ÁAPÀ:25/06/2012 gÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄUÉ eÁj ªÀiÁr¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¦.N. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÄzÁÝA DV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26/06/2012 gÀAzÀÄ
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj. CzÀPÉÌ vÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ºÁUÀÆ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁzÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄÄ PÉ.JA.¹ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀlÖqÀ G¥À«¢üUÀ½UÉ
C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï
PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 321(3)gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß F
PÀbÉÃj ¸ÀASÉå ¸À.PÁ.¤.C/§.±ÀA/ªÁqïð 167/¹.M/10/12-13. ¢£ÁAPÀ:
06/07/2012 gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉñÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ
07(K¼ÀÄ) ¢£ÀzÉƼÀUÉ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ G®èAXvÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. E®èªÁzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀÄĤ¹¥sÀ¯ï PÁ¥ÉÆðgÉõÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ
1976 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ
RZÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀAvÉ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
Thereafter, an order under Section 462 of the Act was also
passed by the jurisdictional Executive Engineer directing
demolition of the property. The order under Section 462 reads as
follows:
"§ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ
PÉ.JA.¹ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ G¥À «¢ü 462 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ
²æêÀÄw ®°vÀªÀÄä, ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀASÉå 10 (ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 06) J¸ï.PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà
gÀ¸ÉÛ §ªÀ£ÀUÀÄr ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå 167 (ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ ªÁqïð £ÀA 59) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¤«Äð¹zÀÝjAzÀ PÉ.JA.¹.PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 gÀ
«¢ü 321 (1) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (2) gÀAvÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ (¦.N £ÉÆÃnøï) ¸ÀASÉå
¸À.PÁ.¤.C/§±ÀA/ªÁqïð 167/¦.N/10/12 ¢£ÁAPÀ:25-06-2012 gÀAzÀÄ DzÉò¹
¢£ÁAPÀ 26-06-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÁÝA DV eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀlÖqÀzÀ
ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ F vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è
ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ PÉ.JA.¹. PÁAiÉÄÝ
1976 G¥À «¢ü 321 (3) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:
¸À.PÁ.¤.C(©.J¸ï.PÉ)/¹.N/10/12-13 ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-07-2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀ£À
DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß DzÉò¹ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¢£ÀAPÀ 10-07-2012 gÀAzÀÄ
£ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-07-
2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÁÝA DV eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ
DVAzÁÝUÉ £À£ÀUÉ DgÉÆÃUÀå KgÀÄ -¥ÉÃgÀÄ DUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄ
ªÀ»¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ
¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀîzÉÃ
EgÀĪÀÅ¢AzÀ ¥Á°PÉ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀåwjPÀÛ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉqÀ« ºÁPÀ®Ä
PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ PÉ.JA.¹ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976 G¥À «¢ü 462 gÀ°è zÀvÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀ
C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ £Á£ÀÄ, ²æÃ.Dgï.ªÀÄzsÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ
C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, §£À±ÀAPÀj G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀjUÉ G¥À «¢ü 462 C£ÀÄß
PÁAiÀÄðUÀvÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä C¢üPÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ, ºÁUÀÆ ¹ÜjPÀgÀt DzÉñÀzÀ°è
w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ G®èAXvÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß K¼ÀÄ ¢£ÀzÉƼÀUÉ PÉÀqÀ« ºÁQ
¥Á°PÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAgÀQë¸À®Ä DzÉò¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ."
Challenging these orders, it appears that the 4th respondent filed
an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.779/2012 and the operation of the aforesaid notices and
orders was stayed by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal,
petitioners had approached this Court seeking consideration of
their grievances. This Court disposed of the writ petition on
21-11-2013 (supra). A direction was given by this Court to
consider their representation during the pendency of the appeal
and the interim order operating against the BBMP. The Tribunal
by its order dated 11-06-2015 allowed the appeal on the short
ground that the property of the 4th respondent was not inspected
in the presence of the 4th respondent to determine the deviation.
The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as
follows:
"DzÉñÀ
1. ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
2. 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¸À. PÁ. ¤. C (©. J¸ï. PÉ)
¹. N/10/2012-13 ¢:06-07-2012£ÀÄß gÀzÄÀ Ý¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
3. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀÄvÁÛ
ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¤Ãr ¥Àæ²ßvÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É
ªÀiÁr «ZÁgÀuÉ £Àqɹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ºÉƸÀzÁV DzÉñÀ
ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.
4. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÉÄîä£À« £ÁåAiÀÄ¢üPÀgÀtzÀ gÉUÀÄå¯ÉñÀ£ï 53(J)gÀAvÉ
wæð£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj PÀqÀvÀzÉÆA¢UÉ
ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
The notices were quashed and direction was issued to conduct a
spot inspection in the presence of the 4th respondent, hold
proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders
thereon. By the time the Tribunal passed the said order, the
subject writ petition had been filed by the petitioners and the
same was pending consideration at the hands of this Court.
13. Therefore, the subject writ petition was pending for a
direction to consider the complaint and take appropriate action
in accordance with law. The Tribunal had remanded the matter
back to the BBMP to conduct spot inspection, hold proceedings
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There was
no impediment for the BBMP to act upon the direction or even
the complaint that was registered by the petitioners. The order of
the Tribunal was on 11-06-2015. Six years have passed by, but
the BBMP has neither conducted any proceedings nor passed
any order pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. The ruse for
such slumber on the part of the officers of the BBMP is
pendency of the subject writ petition. There is no interim order
granted by this Court not to act upon the complaint. There was
an order of the Tribunal directing the BBMP to perform a
particular action. For six years there has been astounding
silence on the part of the BBMP. On a repeated query to the
learned counsel representing the BBMP as to whether any action
is taken after filing of the present writ petition and in terms of
the order of the Tribunal, the answer is emphatic 'no'; the reason
is pendency of the subject writ petition.
14. The Tribunal only directed redoing of the matter and
for such purpose quashed the notices. That did not mean that
illegalities found by the BBMP in the orders passed under
Sections 321(1)(2) and (3) and Section 462 of the Act would
vanish in thin air. The notices were issued in the year 2012 and
the order of the Tribunal was passed in the year 2015, but the
jurisdictional Officers of the BBMP have deliberately kept quiet
for close to 9 years after issuance of notice and six years after
the order was passed by the Tribunal.
15. The allegation of the petitioners is that without
issuance of occupancy certificate the building is occupied by the
4th respondent and further is let out to the 3rd respondent. The
justification of the BBMP is that occupancy certificate in certain
cases would not be required once trade licence is granted to a
building. I decline to accept this justification on the plain
reading of the very provisions of the building bye-laws.
Occupancy certificate is dealt with under Bye-law No.5.6 of the
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003. Bye-law
No.5.7 imposes various conditions for grant of occupancy
certificate. Bye-law Nos.5.6 and 5.7 read as follows:
"5.6. Occupancy Certificate - 5.6.1 (a) Every shall
person before the expiry of five years from the date of issue
of licence shall complete the construction or re-construction
of a building for which the licence was obtained and within
one month after the completion of the erection of a building
shall send intimation to the Commissioner in writing of
such completion accompanied by a certificate in Schedule
VIII certified by a Registered
Architect/Engineer/Supervisor and shall apply for
permission to occupy the building. The Authority shall
decide after due physical inspection of the building
(including whether the owner had obtained commencement
certificate as per Section 300 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 and compliance regarding
production of all required documents including clearance
from the Fire Service Department in the case of high-rise
buildings at the time of submitting application) and
intimate the applicant within thirty days of receipt of the
intimation whether the application for occupancy certificate
is accepted or rejected. In case, the application is
accepted, the occupancy certificate shall be issued in the
form given in Schedule IX provided the building is in
accordance with the sanctioned plan.
(b) Physical inspection means the Authority shall find
out whether the building has been constructed in all
respects as per the sanctioned plan and requirement of
building bye-laws, and includes inspections of the Fire
Service Department wherever necessary.
(c) If the construction or re-construction of a building
is not completed within five years from the date of issue of
licence for such a construction, the owner shall intimate the
Authority, the stage of work at the expiry of five years. The
work shall not be continued after the expiry of five years
without obtaining prior permission from the Authority. Such
continuation shall be permitted, if the construction or re-
construction is carried out according to the licensed plan
and if the Authority is satisfied that at least 75 % of the
permitted floor area of the building is completed before the
expiry of five years. If not, the work shall be continued
according to a fresh licence to be obtained from the
Authority.
5.6.2. For all high-rise buildings, the work shall also
be subject to inspection by the officers of the Karnataka
State Fire Service Department and the occupancy
certificate shall be issued only after obtaining a clearance
certificate from the Director of Fire Services.
5.7. Occupancy or letting of the new buildings.-
No person shall occupy or allow any other person to occupy
any new building or part of a new building for any purpose
whatsoever until occupancy certificate to such buildings or
part thereof has been granted by an officer authorized to
give such certificate, if in his opinion in every respect the
building is completed according to the sanctioned plans
and fit for the use for which it is erected. The Authority
may in exceptional cases (after recording reasons) allow
partial occupancy for different floors of a building"
These very provisions fell for interpretation before a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in BENGALURU HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AND INVESTMENTS v. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE - ILR 2014 KAR 2863 which clearly dealt with the bye-
laws which imposes conditions for issuance of occupancy
certificate and the practice of the BBMP in issuing provisional
occupancy certificate. This Court holds as follows:
"9. The construction of buildings is governed by
the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws,
2003. Bye-law 5.6 is with reference to grant of an
Occupancy Certificate, which reads as follows:
"5.6. Occupancy Certificate -- 5.6.1
(a) Every person shall before the expiry of five
years from the date of issue of licence shall
complete the construction or reconstruction of a
building for which the licence was obtained and
within one month after the completion of the
erection of a building shall send intimation to the
Commissioner in writing of such completion
accompanied by a certificate in Schedule
VIIIcertified by a Registered
Architect/Engineer/Supervisor and shall apply for
permission to occupy the building. The Authority
shall decide after due physical inspection of the
building (including whether the owner had
obtained commencement certificate as per Section
300 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976 and compliance regarding production of all
required documents including clearance from the
Fire Sendee Department in the case of high-rise
buildings at the time of submitting application) and
intimate the applicant within thirty days of receipt
of the intimation whether the application for
occupancy certificate is accepted or rejected. In
case, the application is accepted, the occupancy
certificate shall be issued in the form given in
Schedule IX provided the building is in accordance
with the sanctioned plan.
(b) Physical inspection means the Authority
shall find out whether the building has been
constructed in all respects as per the sanctioned
plan and requirement of building bye-laws, and
includes inspections by the Fire Service
Department wherever necessary.
(c) If the construction or reconstruction of a
building is not completed within five years from the
date of issue of licence for such a construction, the
owner shall intimate the Authority, the stage of
work at the expiry of five years. The work shall not
be continued after the expiry of five years without
obtaining prior permission from the Authority. Such
continuation shall be permitted, if the construction
or reconstruction is carried out according to the
licensed plan and if the Authority is satisfied that
at least 75 per cent of the permitted floor area of
the building is completed before the expiry of five
years. If not, the work shall be continued according
to a fresh licence to be obtained from the Authority.
5.6.2. For all high-rise buildings, the work shall
also be subject to inspection by the officers of the
Karnataka State Fire Service Department and the
occupancy certificate shall be issued only after
obtaining a clearance certificate from the Director of
Fire Services."
10. If the building is partly constructed, then an
Occupancy Certificate in terms of Bye-Law 5.6 cannot be
granted. However, a POC can be granted to a part of the
building, in terms of Bye-Law-5.7, which reads as
follows.
"5.7 Occupancy or letting of the new buildings.-
No person shall occupy or allow any other person
to occupy any new building or part of a new
building for any purpose whatsoever until
occupancy certificate to such buildings or part
thereof has been granted by an officer authorized
to give such certificate, if in his opinion in every
respect the building is completed according to the
sanctioned plans and fit for the use for which it is
erected. The Authority may in exceptional cases
(after recording reasons) allow partial occupancy
for different floors of a building."
11. Bye-law-5.7 postulates various
requirements. The first is that no person shall
occupy or let-in any other person to the building or
part thereof, until an Occupancy Certificate to such
a building or part thereof has been granted.
Therefore, until and unless an Occupancy
Certificate is granted, no building or part of it, can
be occupied. Secondly, the grant of Occupancy
Certificate shall be only after the opinion of the
officer is to the effect that in every respect, the
building or part thereof is complete, according to
the plan sanction and that it is fit for use for which
it was erected.
12. (a) The first part of Bye-law 5.7 clearly
narrates that no person can occupy the building or
part thereof without an Occupancy Certificate.
Admittedly persons have been inducted prior to
grant of POC. It is contrary to law. The occupation
of the building or part thereof is opposed to law. No
person can be inducted in any manner whatsoever,
without an Occupancy Certificate by the
Corporation. Therefore, all such persons who have
been inducted prior to the grant of POC, are in
illegal occupation.
(b) The second part of Bye-law-5.7 is to the effect
that the concerned officer has to opine, that the
Occupancy Certificate sought for the building or the part
thereof is complete in terms of the sanction plan.
Therefore, if the building or the part thereof, is not
completed in terms of the plan sanction, no such
Occupancy Certificate can be granted. Even otherwise,
the authorized officer should opine that the building or
part thereof is completed. Therefore, until the building or
the part thereof is completed in terms of plan sanction
and the Authorized Officer has so opined, with regard to
the same, no Occupancy Certificate can be granted.
13. (a) Therefore, firstly no person can occupy or
allow any other person to occupy the building or a
part thereof, for any purpose whatsoever, until an
Occupancy Certificate to such a building or a part
thereof, is granted by the Authorised Officer.
Therefore, it narrates that no person shall occupy
the building until an Occupancy Certificate is
granted. It also states that no person shall occupy
or that such a person shall allow any other person
to occupy. Secondly, such occupation of the
building cannot take place for any purpose
whatsoever. It would imply, that whatever may be
the reason, whatever may be the circumstance, no
person shall occupy the premises. The language
used is that no persons 'shall'. Therefore, it is
mandatory. 'Shall' is a compulsion. Therefore,
compliance is a must.
(b) That occupation cannot take place until
and unless an Occupancy Certificate to such a
building is granted. Admittedly, persons have been
allowed to occupy portions of the buildings.
Therefore, in view of the admitted position, there
has been a violation of Law. Persons have been
allowed to occupy the premises without a POC.
... ... ... ...
20. Records are procured by the Learned
Counsel for the Corporation. Extracts of various file
notings are also part of the writ petition papers. A
reading would show that consistently the
Corporation have been issuing notices/intimations
to the builder, with regard to the various violations.
That violations have been noticed in the process of
construction as well as in the induction of tenants.
That the violations as pointed out by the
Corporation have not been rectified by the builder.
Even when the violations were pointed out by the
Corporation they have not been attended to by the
builder, but conditions regarding the violations
have been imposed while granting the POC.
However, it would not be necessary for this Court to
record a finding on the building violation, since the
same would have to be dealt with independently by
the Corporation. It is suffice to state that when the
POC has been granted on conditions, it implies that
the building is not in terms of the plan sanction,
which is a mandatory requirement in terms of Bye-
law 5.7.
21. (a) Having held that the grant of the POC is
without authority of law, consequences would follow.
Therefore, Learned Counsels were granted substantial
time in order to make their submissions with regard to
the same. Time was granted to the builder at his request,
to enable him to produce judgments of this Court on the
present issue, which according to him stood covered.
However, no judgments are produced. However the
builder has filed a memo in the Court today, furnishing
details with regard to the persons inducted in Towers --
C and D. List-II shows that the builder is receiving a
monthly rent of Rs. 2,35,71,833/- from them.
(b) Having come to the conclusion that the grant of
POC is erroneous, the question of the builder continuing
to receive revenue, would be unacceptable. The material
would show that some of the tenants were inducted prior
to the grant of POC and some of them after the grant of
POC. The persons who have been inducted prior to the
grant of POC are unauthorized occupants and the builder
has violated the Law in putting them in possession.
Appropriate proceedings require to be initiated, if not
already done, by the Corporation against the builder as
well as the tenants seeking recovery of the illegal rents
received, their eviction or otherwise. Some of the tenants
have been inducted after the grant of POC. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the tenants who have been inducted
after the grant of POC have been illegally inducted. It is
only presently that this Court has held that the POC is
illegal. These tenants have been inducted after the POC is
issued. Therefore, so far as these persons are also
concerned, as a consequence to this order the Corporation
would have to initiate appropriate proceedings against
the builder as well as the tenants seeking their eviction or
otherwise.
(c) It is submitted at the Bar by the builder that on
receiving such notices, they were challenged before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Since the Corporation
asked them to withdraw the said cases, they have done
so and consequently, compounding fee has been
collected, etc. However, I' am of the considered view that
the proceedings for their eviction or otherwise is to be
dealt with by the Corporation. Having held that the POC
is unauthorized, necessarily, the occupants would be
unauthorized occupants. Eviction should be in
accordance with law. It is for the Corporation to deal with
it, by issuing fresh notices and or pursuing the old notices
and it is for the builder/tenants to defend themselves in
those proceedings. It is beyond the scope of these
petitions, to consider eviction. So far as the eviction of
these tenants are concerned, the Corporation would have
to initiate appropriate proceedings for the same, if not
already done. Proceedings are also to be initiated against
the builder for wrongful induction of the tenants as
opposed to law.
(d) However, until such an action is completed, the
tenants would necessarily continue to pay the rents and
such rents would be receivable by the builder. Having
held that the grant of the POC is erroneous, necessarily
the builder cannot be allowed to make profit from the
same. Therefore, until and unless proceedings for illegal
induction and the consequences thereof follow, in my
considered view, every such income that is received from
the tenants so far as Towers C and D are concerned,
cannot be enjoyed by the builder. It does not belong to
him. It is an illegal income. It is an income out of violation
of Law.
(e) Merely, quashing the POC granted to the
building would be an exercise in futility. As a
consequence of quashing the POC, the logical
consequences of such an order should follow. It is only
then that the writ would be meaningful. Otherwise, it
would be a futile writ. Therefore, as a consequence of
quashing the POC, it is only just and necessary that the
builder cannot be allowed to receive such an illegal
income. Further, since the tenants are in possession of
the premises, the rents that they are paying can be
adjusted by the Corporation, either towards the part
payment of the penal fee, fines, etc. in the proceedings
with regard to the violation of induction of persons in
terms of Bye-law 5.7 and other attendant provisions. It is
only then that justice would be done and not otherwise.
22. (a) Hence, I' am of the view that these amounts
should be deposited with the respondent-Corporation on
a month to month basis. It is only then, that complete
justice would be done. The payments being received by
the builders in terms of the memo dated 01.10.2013, with
reference to List-II in a sum of Rs. 2,35,71,833/- shall be
deposited by the builder in favour of the Commissioner,
BBMP from this date onwards.
(b) In turn, the Commissioner, BBMP shall deposit
these amounts in a fixed deposit in any nationalized
bank, that would accrue maximum interest. Such interest
shall be further redeposited in a Fixed Deposit.
(c) Only if a final Occupancy Certificate under Bye-
law 5.6 is issued to the builder and only after completion
of all litigations and disputes vis-a-vis the builder, owner
and the Corporation, with reference to the property in
question, that the Commissioner, BBMP be permitted to
deal with the amounts that he has received, till that date.
It is needless to state that the Commissioner, BBMP, is at
liberty to treat all such amounts received by him till that
date along with interest, to be regarded as a part
payment of penalty or otherwise deal with it in
accordance with law, while considering the illegal
induction of persons in violation of Bye-law 5.7. He shall
also keep in mind that this money is generated out of an
unlawful induction of tenants. The question of returning
any part of this money to the builder does not arise.
(d) The persons inducted prior to the grant of POC
are illegal occupants. All amounts received by the builder
from them from the date of induction would have to be
recovered by the Corporation by initiating appropriate
proceedings against them. There is no question of the
builder retaining these amounts. It is an illegal amount. It
is received by the builder by violating the Law. Therefore,
since the builder has already received these amounts, the
Corporation may initiate proceedings for the recovery of
these amounts in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the building bye-laws and their interpretation by
this Court, no justification can be placed by the BBMP for taking
recourse to grant of provisional occupancy certificate. Therefore,
the very act of the BBMP in not acting upon the order passed by
the Tribunal by conducting an inspection is on the face of it
contrary to law.
16. The BBMP had already determined the illegalities in
the construction of the building in terms of what was appended
to the order passed under Section 321(2) and Section 462 of the
Act. The Tribunal only directed a joint inspection to be
conducted and proceedings to be drawn up. Therefore, the
BBMP will now, within a time frame, conduct such proceedings
against the 3rd and 4th respondents, further giving opportunity of
hearing to all the parties to the lis and pass appropriate orders
thereon. The BBMP cannot ignore the notices that were issued
in the years 2012 with regard to violations in the construction
by the 4th respondent, as the violations in the construction
cannot vanish by passage of time.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(b) The Joint Commissioner of the BBMP is directed to
initiate such proceedings against respondents 3 and
4 concerning trade licence and construction of the
building, hear all the parties to the lis and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(c) The parties shall appear before the Joint
Commissioner without any further notice from the
hands of the Joint Commissioner on 11th April 2022
at 3 p.m. which would be the date of commencement
of proceedings and the Joint Commissioner shall
endeavour to conclude the proceedings within four
weeks thereafter.
(d) The Joint Commissioner of the BBMP shall also
cause a joint inspection of the property in the
presence of all parties to the lis, secure a report
which shall be a part of the proceedings.
(e) Continuance of trade licence of the 3rd respondent
and occupation of the 4th respondent in the building
shall depend on the outcome of the proceedings of
the Joint Commissioner, BBMP. The orders to be so
passed by the Joint Commissioner shall be placed
before the Chief Commissioner before its issuance.
The action taken by the BBMP shall be
communicated to the parties concerned without any
loss of time.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
