The Chief Commissioner Bbmp vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7317 Kant

                                        -1-
                                                  NC: 2023:KHC:37781-DB
                                                    WA No. 977 of 2023



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                     PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                       AND

                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                      WRIT APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

             BETWEEN:

             THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP,
             OFFICE AT BRUHAT BANGALORE
             MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
             N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
                                                           ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B.,ADVOCATE)
             AND:

             1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Digitally          VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
signed by          BENGALURU-560 001.
SHARADA
VANI B             REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
Location:
HIGH COURT   2.    M/S VAGESHWARI LAND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD
OF
KARNATAKA          GODREJ ONE, V FLOOR, PIROJSHANAGAR
                   EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
                   VIKHROLI (E), MUMBAI-400 079.
                   REP BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
             (BY SMT. NILOUFER     AKBAR.,    ADDITIONAL   GOVERNMENT
             ADVOCATE FOR R1)

                  THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
             HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.
             No. 7740 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:37781-DB
                                                 WA No. 977 of 2023



THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No. 7740 OF 2023 DATED 20.04.2023 AND BE FURTHER
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND B. PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY
DEEM IT JUST AND PROPER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TOGETHER AS TO EXEMPLARY
COSTS TO SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal with its inherent limitations

seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order

dated 20.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.7740/2023 (LB-BMP).

This appeal is presented by the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike which was arrayed as second

respondent in the said writ petition. The operative portion

of the order reads as under:

"i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.03.2023 in the similar manner as that done for the applicants/project proponents in the documents produced today within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter."

NC: 2023:KHC:37781-DB WA No. 977 of 2023

2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the

appellant -BBMP seeks to faltered the impugned order

contending that the reference to furnishing of bank

guarantee, as made in para 3 of the said order, makes it

vulnerable for challenge. He hastens to add that in the

fitness of things, the offer of bank guarantee has no place

to occupy.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and having perused the papers, we decline

indulgence mainly because the impugned judgment is

nothing more than "an order to pass an order" on the

representation dated 29.03.2023 made by the second

respondent -Company which happened to be the writ

petitioner. Such orders do not merit deeper examination

in appeal of the kind especially when the learned Single

Judge has specifically stated "This Court has not expressed

any opinion on the merits of the matter".

4. The vehement submission of learned panel

counsel appearing for the appellant -BBMP that the offer

NC: 2023:KHC:37781-DB WA No. 977 of 2023

of bank guarantee by the writ petitioner who is the second

respondent herein does not fit into the scheme of things

which need to be accomplished in the statutory

arrangement, does not much impresses. If such a

concession is shown to the similarly circumstanced

builders, there will be least justification for a

discriminatory treatment, the rule of equality enshrined in

Article 14 of the Constitution of India being recognized as

one of the Basic Features.

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid

of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected in limine.

Registry to send a copy of this order to the second

respondent by speed post.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE Snb/Bkv