Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
4. Mr. B.K.Jagadischandra
Secretary, SRWA
Age 69 years
S/o Late Shri. B.N. Kappanna
438, 11th Main Road, R.M.V.Extension
Sadashivanagar, Bangalore 560 080
1
7. Air Vice-Marshal (Retd.) S. Krishnaswamy AVSM,
s/o Late Mr. K.R. Srinivasan,
Aged 77 years,
Retired Senior IAF Officer,
A1, “Vijayasrinivas”, 218, 3rd Main,
Defence Colony, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038.
2
14. Dr. R. Balasubramaniam,
s/o Late Dr. K. Ramakrishna Iyer,
Aged 64 years,
Director and Scientific Adviser,
National Aerospace Laboratories (Retd.)
808, “Mayurapriya”, 7th Main, 1st Cross, HAL 2nd Stage,
Bangalore 560 008.
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Department of Urban Development
M.S. Building
Bangalore – 560 001
Represented by its Secretary
3
The Petitioners above named beg to submit as follows –
1. The first Petitioner is a registered society having its office at #31/1, 1st Floor,
the Petitioner are public spirited citizens and the Petitioner’s main objectives,
Governance, proper disclosure norms for the Government and having absolute
Civic issues. More than 20 resident welfare associations spread all over the
with several citizens’ federations are members of the Petitioner. A copy of the
Articles of Association and Rules and regulations of the Petitioner and the
ANNEXURE ‘A’. The second Petitioner is the Secretary of the first Petitioner
2. The third Petitioner is a registered society having its office at # No. 457, 11th
members of the Petitioner are public spirited citizens. The third Petitioner has
private partnership. Rupees 70.00(seventy) lakhs has been spent in the park for
providing a jogging and walking track, children play equipment and water
fountain and water cascade. It is the only “Pay and Use” Park in Bangalore.
The entire amount of Rs.70.00 lacs has been raised from the residents of
4
Association has played a prominent role in motivating and influencing civic
agencies like BBMP, BWSSB, BESCOM, traffic police and other agencies to
yearly implement projects and programmes for improving the civic amenities
in the area and for ensuring efficient traffic regulations and management. A
Petitioner and the names of its members are produced herewith and
3. Petitioners 5 to 17 are distinguished citizens from various walks of life, and are
welfare.
Development Plan at least once in 10 years from the date on which the last
existing Master Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area namely Revised
05.01.1995 was required to be revised since the currency of the Master Plan
Authority, formulated a Revised Master Plan 2015, which was approved and
confirmed by the first Respondent vide its order No. UDD 540 BEM AA SE
2004, Bangalore dated 25.06.2007. The Petitioners are filing this petition in
public interest to redress the approval granted by the first Respondent to the
Revised Master Plan 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the RMP”) for the
5
Bangalore Metropolitan Region (hereinafter referred to as “the BMR”)
feedback and expert opinion reflected in the PSS Thomas Committee Report
that has directly affected the rights of the citizens and residents of Bangalore,
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
6. For the purposes of this petition, it is relevant to trace the circumstances under
which the third Respondent came to be constituted and also peruse the hitherto
statutory situation prior to the constitution of the third Respondent as the prime
Authority for the planning, co-ordinating and supervising the proper and
Urban planning in Bangalore is largely governed by the Act. The Act aims to
provide for the regulation of land use development and for the making and
ensure that town-planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their
execution is made effective, the Act provides for declaration of “local planning
areas” and a “local authority” to prepare a development plan for the entire local
planning area falling within its jurisdiction. The preparation of the Master Plan
is vested with the Planning Authority constituted under Section 4 of the Act.
the Planning Authority for the local planning area comprising the city of
Bangalore. However this has undergone a change with the enactment of the
6
7. Given that Bangalore is the capital city of Karnataka and over the past two
commerce and other areas, great concern and interest has been shown by the
State Government for its planned development. As the State Government felt
that there was no proper coordination among the local bodies like the BDA, the
“KEB”), and the Corporation etc. within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, it
8. The BMRDA Act, 1985 was, inter alia, enacted in order to constitute an
Authority to co-ordinate the activities of the local bodies like BDA, BWSSB,
housing etc. The preamble to the Act itself is categorical in this regard and
reads as under –
7
9. Thus, the third Respondent BMRDA came to be constituted under the
BMRDA Act and is the Authority within the meaning of Section 2(a) thereof.
For the purposes of the BMRDA Act, the terms ‘Bangalore Metropolitan
Region’ and ‘Local authority’ are defined in section 2(c) and 2(j) and read as
under:
10. The functions to be discharged by the third Respondent and the powers vested
8
(iii) to cause to be carried out such works as are contemplated in
the structure plan
(vi) to raise finance for any project or scheme for the development
of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region and to extend assistance to
the local authorities in the Region for the execution of such project
or scheme
[Emphasis supplied]
11. A perusal of the powers and functions conferred under Section 9 of the
BMRDA Act makes it clear that the range and sweep of the powers are such
that the BMRDA is vested with the power to formulate as many schemes as are
necessary for implementing the structure plan for the BMR and to do all such
9
acts that may be entrusted by the Government or which may be necessary or
incidental to further the object for which the authority is constituted. Section 9
(ii) empowers the third Respondent to prepare a structure plan for the
carried out such works as are contemplated in the structure plan”. The Master
Plan is the next and consequential step after a structural plan is prepared and it
comes within the sweep of Section 9(iv) and 9(vii) which provides for
formulating schemes necessary for implementing the structure plan for the
region and which also authorizes the Authority to do such acts as are necessary
which the Authorities are constituted. Section 9 (viii) empowers the Authority
authority.
12. Further, section 10 of the BMRDA Act lays down that no person or Authority
the BMRDA Act enjoins the Authority with a power to issue directions. It
reads as under:
10
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, every such direction shall be complied with by
the body to whom it is issued On failure, it shall be competent for
the Authority to take necessary action to carry out the directions
issued under Sub-section (1) and recover expenses, if any, incurred
thereof from the body concerned.
(3) Any dispute which arises between the Authority and the Boards
or other bodies referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of the
directions issued to them shall be determined by the State
Government whose decision shall be final.”
[emphasis supplied]
13. As per Section 28 of the BMRDA Act, the provisions of Act shall override
“28. Act to override other laws.- the provisions of this Act shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force.”
14. Thus, as per the provisions of the BMRDA Act, it is the primary responsibility
to carry out these works, including the supervision and co-ordination of any
Respondent to not only bring out requisite schemes and plans of development
for the BMR, but also actively keep the local authorities, viz., the second
Respondent in check and ensure that any and all development activity taken in
respect of the BMR is in accordance with the provisions of the BMRDA Act,
and the rules framed therein and is in line with the object of planned
background of the object for which the Authority was constituted have
11
overriding effect over the provisions of Section 9 of the Town and Country
Planning Act, wherein the local planning authorities established for the areas
falling within the metropolitan Region are conferred with the powers and
duties to prepare the Mater Plan. Since the enactment of the BMRDA Act, the
granted to the local planning authority- the second Respondent in case of the
15. In this regard, the Act has been suitably amended with the introduction of
12
FACTS
16. The second Respondent purportedly in its capacity as the Designated Planning
1995 and submitted a draft Master Plan to the State Government under letter
the same under Government Order dated 10.06.2005. The said draft Master
Plan was prepared by the second Respondent enlisting the help of a French
consultancy firm, M/s. SCE. The Draft Master Plan was published vide
period given to the citizens for their feedback, the second Respondent received
21.06.2005, to interact with the public and also to give their own
Welfare Associations and NGOs, studied in great detail the implications of the
draft master plan and submitted its recommendations. A copy of the said
17. The Committee’s report had several reservations about the Draft Master Plan
and disagreed with proposals of the Draft Master Plan, inter alia, regarding the
13
blatantly overlooked by the second Respondent. An extract of the Committee’s
18. In an exercise that turned out to be a mere eye-wash, in that the said
recommendations are largely ignored. The third Respondent vide its letter
dated 07.02.2007 sent the Draft Master Plan back to the second Respondent
the said letter is produced herewith marked ANNEXURE ‘E’. This in turn
order is produced herewith marked ANNEXURE ‘F’. The Core Group made
some suggestions have been ignored, which is apparent from the Vision
19. Vide letter dated 22.06.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary to the State
Government to the BDA appears to have sought changes to the Revised Master
Plan. Without even considering the contents of the letter issued, the second
Respondent replied to the said letter on 23.06.2007, the very next day with the
false assurance that the changes sought were incorporated. Subsequently, the
first Respondent approved the Revised Master Plan despite the fact that the
second Respondent had not taken into consideration the ground realities of the
14
Bangalore. The original order approving the Revised Master Plan, 2015 is
20. The Petitioners submit that the first Respondent has failed its citizens by
illegally directing the third Respondent to approve the master plan when the
Committee and the citizens. Though the preparation of the Master Plan is
Planning Act, 1961, in so far as the developmental activities coming within the
competent to exercise these powers. The third Respondent has abdicated its
functions and duties under the BMRDA Act, frustrating the very object of its
revised master plan for the BMR, when there is a specific authority constituted
for this purpose. In any case, the second Respondent can only carry out the
21. The Petitioner submits that the Revised Master Plan, 2015 has been formulated
in a mechanical manner with non application of mind, apart from the fact the
22. The Revised Master Plan, 2015 has been formulated by the second Respondent
not taken into consideration the needs of the citizens and is not in the best
should always be at the centre of any development plan. The revised master
15
plan has ignored the interests of the resident citizen however is an
acknowledgement of all the violations that have taken place in the past several
years and merely attempts to legalise and further perpetuate the chaos created
by land use violations in residential areas, valley areas and green belt areas.
predominantly residential areas, High tech. Zones, and so on. If this did not
activities in residential areas, which are nothing short of free for all
life.
appraise the Revised Mater Plan, 2015 has taken objection to several proposals
in the development plan. The third Respondent has also raised several concerns
and has even rejected certain proposals about the Plan. The first Petitioner has
respect of the Revised Master Plan, 2015. A copy of the objections filed by the
society had even organized a panel discussion on the ‘Revised Master plan-
2015 for Bangalore & Building Bye-Law & Land Use Zoning Violations
the representatives of the Expert Committee, the BDA and other municipal
bodies and other leaders to interact with the citizens of Bangalore and arrive at
16
representatives of the Respondents failed to utilize this opportunity and did not
attend the discussion despite having tentatively agreed to attend the same. The
the record of this Hon’ble Court are not filing the said documents and
this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner has also been constrained to make
24. Further, a perusal of the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting approving the Plan,
produced herewith marked ANNEXURE ‘M’ would disclose that the second
Respondent has paid no heed to the objections raised by the Expert Committee,
the third Respondent, Petitioner or any other aggrieved citizens and has
mechanically forwarded the Revised Master Plan to the first Respondent for
approval. As such, the second Respondent has hopelessly failed in its role as a
planning authority and has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice
as well as in violation of the law. The State Government has also mechanically
recommendations and the actual Plan, disclosing the glaring and inherent
marked ANNEXURE N. The Petitioner craves leave to rely upon the contents
17
26. There are glaring differences between the Draft Master Plan which was
opinion and the Revised Master Plan which it has finally approved. Drastic
changes have been brought about in the zoning regulations without assigning
any rationale and which were not originally contemplated in the Draft Master
Plan, and the same reeks of arbitrariness. Further, the very exercise of
publicizing the draft plan and inviting expert and public opinion was redundant
and mere eyewash, if the third Respondent did not intend to heed any of the
Revised Master Plan, which were not proposed in the Draft Master Plan and
are otherwise squarely opposed to the objections of the citizens as well the
27. Vide its order dated 11.02.1988, the Government of Karnataka had accepted
of Bangalore City, clearly stipulating that any tank bed- used or unused,
drainage areas and natural valleys must not be diverted for use as housing
layouts. Thus, valleys, natural drains, tank bed areas and disused tank beds
with the said expert committee report. A copy of the Gazette Notification of
the order along with the Expert committee report is produced herewith marked
ANNEXURE ‘Q’. The Draft Master Plan had in fact demarcated such areas as
‘Protected Land’. However, in the Final Revised Master Plan, these spaces
have been depicted as ‘built up’ and demarcated for ‘residential’ use in total
disregard to the above said order. Instances of these violations are produced
28. The original Master Plan is produced herewith marked ANNEXURE ‘S’.
18
29. The Petitioners submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly
held that planned development, protection of the environment and safe and
Authorities invested with the powers act with vision for the future and take
which has the potential danger of causing great health hazards to the citizens in
the region.
30. Further, large scale conversions and illegal usage of land use violate the Right
inconvenience and lack of peace and comfort. The Revised Master Plan 2015,
seeks to give credence to these very illegal actions through its proposal of
Mixed Zones, commercial axes, mutation corridors etc. Further, the readiness
with which the third respondent has sought to introduce mixed land use in pure
31. The Petitioners submit that this Hon’ble Court could take judicial notice of the
violation of the rights of the citizens of Bangalore including the right to live in
a healthy and well planned environment, resulting from gross omissions and
32. In the circumstances, the Petitioners submit that they have no other alternative
and efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its
The Petitioners have not preferred any other writ petition on the said cause of
19
Therefore, the Petitioners beg to prefer this Memorandum of Writ Petition on
GROUNDS
33. The Revised Master Plan, 2015 formulated by the second Respondent
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Plan”) and the approval granted by the first
vires.
34. Despite the express language of Sections 9, 10, 18 of the BMRDA Act and
Section 81-C of the Town & Country Planning Act that the ultimate authority
Region shall be the third Respondent, the second Respondent has usurped the
power and has exercised unbridled power in formulating the Revised Master
Plan, 2015. As such, the said Plan is without jurisdiction and ultra vires.
35. The approval of BMRDA has not been obtained for the said Plan and as such
36. The said Plan is formulated and the said approval granted is in gross violation
of Section 81C of the Act, particularly as the approval is not sought through
the BMRDA, which is mandatory. The very purpose of the BMRDA Act
37. The third Respondent is guilty of dereliction of its duty under the BMRDA Act
20
38. The said Plan bears no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the
Town & Country Planning Act and BMRDA Act, and is hence illegal and
39. The second Respondent has failed to consider and incorporate the
received in response to the Draft Master Plan. Hence, the entire exercise is
40. The second Respondent has rejected the recommendations of the third
Respondent with regard to the said Plan without assigning any reasons and has
41. The first Petitioner has made several representations to the authorities that have
not been heeded despite the legal obligation on the authorities to consider and
respond to the same and the right of the petitioner on behalf of the citizens of
43. The said Plan has introduced a new category “T” denoting transportation
facility that can be principal usage in a residential area. However, the same was
not present in the Draft Master Plan and thus no input from the Expert
committee, the BMRDA or the general public is available in this aspect and
21
44. Even otherwise, the second Respondent has failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 81-C of the Town & Country Planning Act and no
45. The second Respondent has failed to consider the public interest element
46. With the deletion of section 19 of the Act, the first and second Respondents
have no right to undertake the formulation of the Plan without the approval of
the third Respondent BMRDA. The said Plan hence defeats the very purpose
of the constitution of the BMRDA and the amendment to the Act by the
47. BMRDA has not acted as the Director, Town Planning as required by section
9, 81C of the Act, inter alia, and hence, the entire exercise is illegal and
opposed to statute.
48. The said Plan and approval are formulated / granted without considering the
various objections filed to the proposed plan, and hence violative of the
49. The Petitioners have reason to suspect that the said Plan and approval are a
22
50. The second Respondent has acted in a mechanical and arbitrary fashion and in
total violation of all the mandates prescribed under the BMRDA Act and the
51. The second Respondent has failed to apply its mind to the requirements of the
52. The action of the second Respondent, the complicity of the first and third
Master Plan being illegal, for the above said reasons, tantamount to fraud on
the statute and is vitiated with mala fides, both legal and factual.
53. The high-handedness of the second Respondent, the inaction of the first and
third Respondents to refuse approval to the Master Plan have affected the
54. Article 21 grants all citizens the right to live in a clean, orderly and healthy
55. The second Respondent has failed to invite national or global tenders for the
formulation of the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and suffers from lack of
transparency.
56. The second Respondent has failed to take into account local participation at
ward levels, or from the local elected representatives while formulating the
23
57. The Master Plan was prepared by the second Respondent enlisting the help of a
French consultancy firm, M/s. SCE, a foreign entity with little or no idea of the
ground realities of the city and its needs while ignoring the detailed analysis
proffered by the expert committee and the BMRDA, the primary authority
responsible for the development of the BMR. As such, the entire exercise is
58. The said Plan seeks to treat unequals as equals and is hence discriminatory and
59. The action of the second Respondent in formulating the Plan violates the
60. The said Plan is passed without taking into account the recommendations of
the BMRDA and on this short ground the said Plan to be quashed.
61. The said Plan is passed without complying with the mandatory requirements of
the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1977, particularly Rules 41 & 42 that
62. The Plan is a violation of the very parent statute and is hence a colourable
63. The Plan is violative of the provisions of the Act as well as the BMRDA Act.
64. The said Plan does not take into account the various recommendations of the
BMRDA as well as the expert committee / core group. Further, the said Plan
24
reflects disparity between the Vision Document and the final Plan itself, and is
ultra vires.
65. The absence of public participation in the formulation of the plan as well as in
the constitution of the BMRDA, core group and expert committee violates the
very purpose of the 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Constitution. The said
amendment is further violated by the failure to take into account the role and
66. The Plan has introduced several new categories of zones, such as "mixed
zones" Mutation Corridors", Transformation zones all of which are ultra vires
67. The said Plan militates against the Right to Life as the civic authorities would
not be able to provide these due to the errors in the Plan. For example the Plan
permits increase in FAR that would lead to higher density of population and
affected areas. The opinion of BWSSB the authority responsible to provide the
same were not considered in approving the Plan and the Petitioner believes that
the expert opinion of BWSSB was deliberately ignored by both first and
second Respondents. Similarly, the views of the Fire Force and Police Force
68. With the introduction of the new Zonal Regulations under the Revised Master
Plan 2015 granting mixed use in all areas, Section 14-A of the Town &
Country Planning has been rendered otiose. Section 14-A was inserted with a
25
the said Plan, sans any cogent reason or justification, hence offending Article
69. The Revised Master Plan, 2015 suffers from various infirmities, viz.,
green belt area from 56% in the year 1995 to a mere 35% currently, permission
70. The said Plan violates the very objects of the Act and the purpose of planning,
71. The said Plan causes a disastrous effect upon the ecology, planning and
identity of the City of Bangalore and violates the fundamental Right to Life of
its residents.
72. The inaction and apathy of the Respondents violates the Constitutional and
73. The Zonal Regulations framed under the said Plan as well as all consequential
74. There is a pressing need for judicial intervention in connection with the failure
rights of citizens.
75. The impugned Revised Master Plan and the actions of the Respondents suffer
from various other infirmities that shall be pointed out at the time of hearing.
26
76. The various grounds raised herein are in the alternative and without prejudice
to one another.
77. The second Respondent has since obtaining approval from the State
the Revised Master Plan 2015. Third parties such as IT and BPO companies
and mutation corridors are also to begin shortly. These changes once granted
will change the landscape of the city absolutely and there will be no recourse
to remedy this and the Petitioners along with other citizens will be put to
78. Therefore, it is just and necessary to restrain the second Respondent from
taking any action under the Revised Master Plan 2015, and stay the operation
of the Revised Master Plan 2015 pending disposal of this petition, in the
enquire into the damage already caused by the implementation of the Plan
and undo the same by filing an appropriate report before this Hon’ble Court.
Unless such orders are passed, the Petitioners and the residents of Bangalore
shall suffer irreparable harm and the petition itself will be rendered
27
PRAYER
may be pleased to –
(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
illegal permissions granted subsequent to the said Plan (at Annexure S);
(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing the approval granted by the first Respondent vide its order No.
G);
(iv) Grant such other and further reliefs, including the costs of this writ
28
INTERIM PRAYER
Pending the disposal of this Writ Petition, the Petitioners respectfully pray
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to (a) stay the operation of the Revised
Master Plan 2015 (at Annexure S), and (b) constitute a Technical Committee to
enquire into the implementation of the said Plan and the illegal permissions and
sanctions granted pursuant thereto, and to file a report before this Hon’ble Court,
and grant such other and further orders as may be expedient in the interests of
justice
BANGALORE
DATED: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS
29