IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NOS.2641 TO 2642 OF 2013(LR) BETWEEN:
1. M/S.KABINI HOLIDAY HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE:MALALLI CROSS, N.BETHLUR, ANTHARASANTHE (PO) HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK, MYSURU – 571 121 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.M.P.CHERIAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. MRS.SOWMYA NARAYANAN W/O MR.T.G.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.132/C, ECC ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY MR.M.P.CHERIAN. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 570 005.
2. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 SMT.ANANDITA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.11.2012 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N OF WRIT PETITION ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioners is that they were permitted by the State to to acquire various extent of land in order to put up an Eco-Resort which would facilitate eco tourism etc.. However, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner that the land in question comes under the Nagarahole Tiger Protection Forest and is adjacent to the back waters of the Kabini reservoir. That they have been directed by the Central Environmental Ministry that within 10 kilometers of National Parks, etc., no developmental projects including resorts could take place. The same is sought to be questioned herein.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the State including the second respondent having granted approval for the project, cannot now turn around, restraining them from putting up the project. The same is disputed by the respondents. They plead that there is a change of policy and new enactments have come into force. There are directions of the Supreme Court and therefore the impugned order stands sustained.
3. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. Even though there are various permissions granted by the various authorities, the same may have been valid at that point of time. Due to the subsequent change of law, as well as the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in pursuance to the subsequent developments as stated above. Therefore, continuation of any project within the forest area etc., having been specifically prohibited, the Deputy Commissioner was therefore justified in passing the impugned order. I find no good ground to interfere. Writ petition is rejected.
However, the petitioners are always at liberty to move the concerned authorities for necessary relief in a manner known to law.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-