Petitioners withdraw in building violations case

Petitioners withdraw in building violations case

The Hindu

High Court asks two advocates to be impleaded in the petition

BANGALORE: Hearing in the public interest litigation (PIL) petition on violation of building norms, illegal change in land use and encroachment of public places in Koramangala here took a new turn with the petitioners filing applications for withdrawing from the case and the Advocate-General, who represented the State, opposing them.

While allowing the withdrawal, the court reiterated its desire to "clean up" Koramangala and asked two advocates, S. Vasudeva and A.V. Amarnathan, to be impleaded as new petitioners, and senior advocate, Nagananda, as the amicus curiae in the case.

When the matter came up, Mr. Nagananda submitted that the petitioners were being treated as fugitives as the residents of the area were feeling that they were responsible for the demolition drive in Koramangala. This feeling was being reinforced as the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) was targeting the 87 buildings that the petitioners had originally named in the petition and the buildings owned by the petitioners.

He said there were demonstrations daily in front of the houses of the petitioners and this was causing hardship to them. Moreover, the children of the petitioners were being threatened and when they boarded public transport vehicles they were identified as children of parents who had filed the petition.

Even some old people were being threatened and asked to move out of the houses, saying that the structures would be demolished. Mr. Nagananda said two of the petitioners wanted to withdraw and indicated that others too would follow suit.

Perturbed by these developments, a Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi, and Justice N. Kumar, which is hearing the case, asked the BMP officials to act with restraint and in a "fair manner".

In its order, the Bench said the petition was filed by eight residents of Koramangala on April 12, 2005. It said orders had been passed directing the BMP to take steps to identify the buildings with violations and while the process of rectification of such violations were on, the petitioners had filed interlocutory applications seeking permission to withdraw from the case.

The Bench said it had granted the prayers in the interlocutory applications for withdrawal without going into the reasons stated by the petitioners. The Advocate-General, B.T. Parthasarathy, opposed the withdrawal stating that it would reflect badly on the State and send a wrong impression that the State was unable to control such incidents.

The Bench said the people had got the impression that only the small and petty traders and businessmen had been affected and the big and influential had managed to escape. The BMP should dispel such an impression, it said and adjourned further hearing to December 15.

It directed the Government to file its statement of objections before the next date of hearing.