IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.44692 OF 2018 (GM-RES) PIL BETWEEN:
MR. S. M. BALU S/O. M. C. SUNDAR RAJ, EX-REFEREE FIFA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 57, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071.
... PETITIONER (BY SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION (KSFA) BANGALORE FOOTBALL STADIUM, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 025.
3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.
4. OZONE GROUP FOOTBALL ACADEMY PVT. LTD., AND HINES INDIA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., (CONSORTIUM), 51/7-2, RATNA AVENUE, OFF RICHMOND ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS (SHRI D. NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROCEED AND COMPLETE THE RECONSTRUCTION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM AT MAGRATH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS THE CUSTODIAN WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of this public interest litigation.
2. The second respondent is Karnataka State Football Association. The case made out in the petition is that the subject land was granted to the second respondent by the third respondent – Municipal Corporation for construction of a football stadium and a stadium was constructed. The second respondent invited tenders for construction of a world class stadium on build, operate and transfer basis. A contract was awarded. The grievance is that notwithstanding award of the contract, a new stadium has not been constructed.
3. The substantive prayer in this petition is for directing the respondents to proceed and complete reconstruction and redevelopment of the football stadium on the land of which the second respondent is the custodian.
4. On the last date, we had called upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to satisfy the Court that the second respondent is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Today, he submits that a writ of mandamus is prayed against the first respondent – State of Karnataka and the third respondent – Municipal Corporation.
He relies upon the rectification deed dated 24th November 1986 by producing a copy of it on record. He submits that the second respondent being a lessee of the third respondent is under obligation to use the said land for the purpose of football stadium. Therefore, it is the obligation of the first respondent – State of Karnataka and the third respondent to construct a football stadium.
5. We have considered the submissions. The rectification deed tendered on record shows that the lessor is the third respondent – Corporation. In any event, the second respondent is stated to be lessee, who is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The land is allotted on lease to the second respondent for construction of a football stadium. There is no legal obligation either of the State of Karnataka or the Municipal Corporation to construct a football stadium. Moreover, the said land is in possession of the second respondent, being the lessee there of.
6. We see existence of no legal obligation of the State of Karnataka and the Municipal Corporation to construct a football stadium. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB