HC stay a result of three PILs

HC stay a result of three PILs
Bangalore, dhns:
The HC stay against processing of applications under Sakrama came in the wake of three PILs, two of which opposed regularisation, while one sought a more people-friendly scheme.

The division Bench headed by Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph said these petitions required serious consideration by the court, while scheduling their next hearing to February 6, 2008.
Two PILs, filed by Citizens’ Forum for Mangalore Development, Mangalore and Abhyudaya - Federation of some residents’ associations of Bangalore, had challenged the Amendment Act that inserted provisions in Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and Karnataka Municipalities Act for regularisation and the connected Karnataka Town Planning and the Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Developments or Constructions) Rules 2007.
Abhyudaya had also impugned the Revised Master Plan 2015 for Bangalore.
Referring to these petitions, the Bench observed: “We are prima facie satisfied that petitioners have raised serious issues and legal contentions regarding the constitutional validity of impugned provisions of the Act and Rules, and also regarding the possible adverse effects on public interest, if these are given effect.”
On the other hand, the PIL by Federation of JP Nagar 7th & 8th Phase of Residents’ Associations and three residents requiring regularisation of their houses has challenged only the provisions that prescribe the fee structure for regularisation, the last date prescribed for submission of applications, seeking substitution of a more people-friendly scheme in place of the present one.
Referring to this petition, the Bench said: “We are prima facie satisfied that even assuming that the intention of legislature and government in making the impugned law is laudable and bona fide, the object sought to be achieved cannot be achieved if statutory provisions are enforced and the scheme, in present form, is implemented. Certain obvious anomalies and irrationalities pointed out have to be rectified. It appears that time granted for submitting applications is inadequate and unreasonable, and there is considerable force in the contention that all required formalities, including payment of prescribed fee for regularisation, cannot be completed within the time stipulated, which expires on December 14.”
The court also observed: “Though government also appears to be convinced that certain aspects of scheme opposed by targeted beneficiaries requires review and modification, and time granted for submission of applications is inadequate, government feels helpless to redress the problem in the absence of an elected legislature and government.”
The court has given a month’s time to government to file its statement of objections to these PILs and two weeks’ time subsequently for the petitioners to file any rejoinders.