No cut-and-dried case this!

No cut-and-dried case this!
Deccan Herald
:
Will the Rs 33-crore underground parking project, proposed to come up in front of the Karnataka High Court, become a reality?

Will the Rs 33-crore underground parking project, proposed to come up in front of the Karnataka High Court, become a reality?

This, interestingly, is a matter to be decided by the High Court itself, considering the fact that the area where the project is to come up falls under Cubbon Park limits.

The law mandates that any construction in the park area should get the High Court’s nod.

The Registrar-General of the court had, in December 2006, approved setting up of an underground parking in Cubbon Park and had asked the government to go ahead with the project.

The High Court had approved the project in view of the parking problems faced by lawyers and litigants on its premises.

However, this decision came to be challenged as an interlocutory application was filed before the court, seeking a direction to publish a notice and invite objections from the public before going ahead with the project.



Contention

The applicant, Bimal N Desai, contended that underground parking would spoil the park’s beauty.

Mr M G Kumar, arguing for the applicant, said that in view of Circuit Benches being established at Dharwad and Gulbarga in north Karnataka, several of the courts within the High Court complex would be shifted and “automatically the litigant/lawyer population here would come down”.

Mr Desai also said several trees would be cut, “permanently killing the beauty of the area”.



Govt assurance

The government, however, assured the court that there was nothing to worry. Ramesh K Jagirdar, under secretary, PWD (Buildings), told the court that the project would come up in an area where are there were very few trees.

“In case a tree is felled, two saplings would be planted in its place. The open space and the lawns in front of the court would also be protected, “ the government submitted.

During the course of the hearing, the applicant argued that the Chief Justice could not hear the case as he himself was part of the committee which approved the proposal.

But Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph said “there have be-en several instances where judges have taken decisions on the administrative side and the same judge has quashed the decision on the judicial side”. The Bench comprising Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice B S Patil has reserved orders.