IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.57241 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI A.V.S. SHAGRITHAYA SON OF LATE A.K. VENKATRAMANA SHAGRITHAYA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS CLASSIC VILLAGE, SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 006.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI: K.J. JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: PAPI REDDY G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ASHOKNAGAR MANGALURU-575 005.
3. MANGALURU ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. CANTREADS PRIVATE LIMITED CLASSIQUE VILLAGE SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU-575 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K.C. NAIK.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: AJITH ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI: HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI: SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI: SHAHBAAZ HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER AND ANNEXURE-E FURTHER CANCEL THE ALLEGED LEASE DEED DATED 06.06.2014 ENTERED IN BETWEEN MUDA AND MESCOM VIDE ANNEXURE-D; DIRECT THE MUDA TO USE THE CIVIC AMENITY OR CAUSED TO USE THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR PROVIDING CIVIL AMENITY TO THE RESIDENTS OF LOCALITY IN PUBLIC AS PER THE ZONAL REGULATIONS FOR THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed in public interest seeking to quash the allotment letter issued by the second respondent – Mangaluru Urban Development Authority in favour of respondent No.3 - Mangaluru Electrical Supply Company Limited.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that the land is a civic amenity site. That the land has been granted to respondent No.3, who proposes to establish a training Institute for its employees. The same does not come within the definition of civic amenity. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed and the allotment be set aside.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned Counsel for the respondents’ Counsel.
4. The petitioner’s Counsel relies on the Draft of Common Zonal Regulations published in the Gazette dated 01.07.2017. He places reliance on Clause 2.15, which reads as follows:
“2.15 ‘Civic amenity’ means – the following Civic Amenities provided by the Central or State Government Department, statutory body and local authority, namely:-
(a) (i) XXX (ii) XXX (iii) XXX (iv) XXX (v) XXX (b) (i) XXX (ii) XXX (iii) XXX (iv) Area office or a service station of the local authority or the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board or the Electricity Supply Companies (ESCOMs) and other Government Departments and Statutory Bodies providing Public Utilities.”
5. Admittedly, respondent No.3 is the Mangaluru Electrical Supply Company Limited. It comes within the definition of Clause 2.15 (iv). The land has been allotted for the purpose of conducting training for its employees alone. It is a public allotment. Since it squarely falls under the aforesaid definition, it is inappropriate to hold that the allotment runs contrary to being a civic amenity. The sites have been earmarked. The allotment is in accordance with law. Hence, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-