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.28691 OF 2019 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SIDDALILNGAPPA SON OF BHIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.C50, INDUSTRIAL AREA, LOKIKERE ROAD, SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI NEW TOWN, DAVANAGERE – 577 005.
2. R.J. RAJAPPA SON OF JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.381, S.A. RAVINDRANATHA NAGAR, SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI DAVANAGERE – 577 005.
3. SRI S.MALLANAGOUDA SON OF BASAVANAGOUD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.630/1, SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. DAVANAGERE – 577 005.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP BY ITS:
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, RAITHA BHAVANA, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
4. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
6. THE COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE CITY CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH KUMAR.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSTRUCT DR.AMBEDKAR BHAVAN IN THE EARLIER PROPOSED SITE NO.42 IN SY.NO.54/1 OF DODDABUDIHAL VILLAGE, DAVANGERE MEASURING 77.72 +75/2 x 52.50 METERS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed in the interest of public seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent to construct Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan in the earlier proposed site and for a mandamus not to construct the same in the new site.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that the new site identified is not feasible. It is a far off place and the people will suffer. Therefore, the earlier identified place is more ideal to construct Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan.
3. On hearing the petitioners’ Counsel, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.
4. Firstly, is the fact that it is not for the petitioner to chose where the Bhavan is to be built. It is for the concerned authorities to decide the same. They having decided not to construct the Bhavan, in the earlier site, for obvious and good reasons, they have shifted the construction of the said Bhavan to a new location. The Courts cannot interfere into each and every policy decision taken by the authorities. It is not for the petitioner to decide as to why, where and how a particular building has to be constructed. We find no good grounds made out to interfere in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. Four weeks time is granted to learned Government Advocate to file memo of appearance.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
CT:MJ