Sri C J Singh vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Chief ... on 27 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Author: V.Gopalagowda & Swamy

IN THE HIGH COURT oz? KARNATAKA, BANGALOIQTA

DATED THIS ON THE 27th DAY or NovEMB1§R0'§:0§§'9n 
BEFORE   Tek !{ei_

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T 

AND  L'   .0     % _  

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  

W.P. No. 936/2006 (pm,  rio.:i%3904Q/3000 (GM-PIL),
W.P.N0. 4100/2008 (GM-POL} am! .'CX?":Vg4¢C'o231£2008C€";U?1'>

WP.No.936/20O6_.V(ii§U'_,   

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. C.J. S;'._ngh_     -- I
Son of lateéﬁtam S-ingh"e«KOc.h'ar 
Aged 71 years, Q *   ..  '
Residing at 6thCross, ECG Read,
[Near ELEM 5; Next tp DEEN Gardens)

Wh,jte FTj_é1d,_._eV  TTTTT ~
"E3ANG.ALORE ----_56O O66. ..... ..PETITIONER

{  Senior Advocate
for /s.Ravi Ravi, Advs.)

 '  ef Karnataka

.._VRepresen4£r:d by Chief Secretary

 Department of Urban Town Planning
'fvidhaiia Souclha,

  ' 0 . V _ _V Bangalore,

\/

 



 

-- 0  _& Athashri 
 N (My/s. Niketah. Shelters Pvt. Ltd.,)
_°~--._N'o.e .27 3, Monalisa Apartments,

" " V1000' feet __Road. HAL II Stage,
-, Q '1  "Indi1'anagar,
'*.,"_«_'Bar1ga_}orel.

 

. The Chairman

Bangalore Development Authority,

Sanke Road,
Bang ore.

. The Commissioner

C.M.C.   

Mahadevapura,
Bangalore.

. The Deputy Commissioner,

K.G. Road.
Bangalore -- 560009.

. Karnataka State Pollution _Cof'11.trol__V . 1, 

Rep. by its Chairman,_

Utility Building,        

M.G. Road,   
Bangalore ~-- 560n00_1;;_V '

Rep. by itS7I)ii'ector[  '

No. 1 8: 2, *  " _   0 
Annaswamy Mmialiar -Road;  "V
Ulsoor,   '

. The Dept. of I-7'i19e"   Services,

 I     . . . . . .4 'V

. M','._s'. }?eii*an3'vaipieV'St:i1emes

(Constifuetiorxs) 

\\/



 

(By Sri.U.L.Bhat, Senior Advocate for
Sr1'.Pra;moo' N .Kathavi, Adv.)

AND:

1.

THE KARNATAKA STATE
CONTROL BOARD
Having its Office at # 49,
"Parisara Bhavan", Church Street,
Bangalore --- 560001.  _
Represented by its Chairman,

POLLUTION

Government of India,
Paryavaran Bhavan.

4"' Floor, Lodi Road,'
coo Complex,  
New Delhi -- 1100;_33.}1~'_ _ .   
Represented by its _See1'e_1:aryj;--.. _    V. K

  FoR;;s»r, 'ecoLoGY AND

MINISTRY or ENVIRONMENT A_ND--A.F_'O'R'E_ST, O'

THE DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMEN'I";"~O.j.o _  V _
Government of Ka.rnataka.,  "
M.S. Building, 4- "   '
Bangalore. V'  _ '_  ' 
Represented by ifeseeretary.

.   or1:;pU*f¥eroMM1ss1oNER,

K..G.Road. . ﬂ 
Bangalore' :- "5§30.0Q9;' 

 C.iTY'MUi\IfC§VII3AL COUNCIL,

 Mahadevapura, 'V "
eoerearrgasore. e

Represeented by its Commissioner

~ .3'. "siiagh
 O --Son_of1?ate Atam Singh Kochar
 .  Aged"'?2 years,

\\\b/



BANGALORE'  : COMPLAINANT

 (By  Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. for

 it " 0' 7. VA'i§\.t..*.1asi0r':riA'  ape Schemes,
  V  Repifcsenteci by Shri. Shashank Paranjape

 

# 49, Church Street,
Bangalore -- 560001.

2. Athashri Paranjape Schemes.
Flat No. 1, Monalisa Apartments,
100 Feet Road, HAL 2nd Stage,
6th Main, Indiranagar, , > ,_  -3    « I
Bangalore «~ 560038.  . . . g;'RESPON[)EN'}.'  7-]

This Writ petition is ﬁled u:'1_Cle.r Artivcles. 22.6  of '
Constitution of India praying to quash the"impL:gned order
dated 20.02.2008 passed in appeaIy_.18'/.2007 vid'e--Ann.exure A
on its ﬁle by the Karnataka State' 0Ap_p.ell~-ate Authority at
Bangalore under Water and'~.Air. {'l?rev}en'ti.onV0and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, 1981. Coris_equently~-.set}ja.side the order
of grant of CFE (Consent, for ,Establishti1?1enlt)- dated 12.10.2007
Passed by the R1 vide 9:a1)}i1exi.,1re J"etc'.,_V   

IN ccc.231/20030  S  

BETWEEN:

Sri. C.J. Singhvuag % '    
Son of late Atamﬁingh Kociéarh

Aged 73 years, '  ~ ' '
Residing atffﬁh Cross, ECC____Road,

(Near ELEM} Behi.n'd,Samarpan Enclave,
White Fi.eld._ * = 

 -VSr1.M.'C..Rav1 Kumar, Adv. for M / s.RaVi & Ravi)

\\/



S/0. Late Sri. VB. Paranjape
Flat N0. 1, Monalisa Apartments.
100 Feet Road, HAL 2"" Stage.
6"} Main, Indiranagar,

 

Bangalore -- 560038. ; RESPONDENT/A:c.cUsEn it   J

(By Sri.U.L.Bhat, Senior Advocatev.;fori::A" Sri.Pramod N .Kathavi, Adv.) " ' This ccc ﬁled 11/5 11 & 12 __o"f,the Contvernpt""of"Co"urt Act praying to initiate contempt Vpfrorceedingspiiagainst the accused for disobeying the order d.ate"d_ 'O.1_.04.08~-pavssed in W.P.No.4 100/08 [GM-Po1) vid¢«i.ann;exure-'fr; These Writ petitions and coining on for pronouncement of order igiefore the ,Coui?t- ,_this"day, GOPALA GOWDA. J., pronouiiceii-the 'f.olloWing:<_ M p at Q" 1.33% By consent'-- of for the parties, all these matters wereiistegd -andiiheard together and matters are disposed of thisVVp_co11'irr'ien----.order. is ﬁied by one Sri C.J.Singh 'seeking for "issu__ance" of a direction to respondents 1 & 2 via, Karnataiqa and Chairman, Bangalore Development exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter cailed V as KT 8: CP Act in short] and make such inspection ancl'"pass orders taking into consideration the concept of in respect of the intended construction activity being' respondent No.7, (hereinafter called llalPv'tv.Ltd;; in Sy.No.19/2, 147/4 and 143/002 ofl4'~i?attandulr'.i, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore"e'a:and' the respondent No.4, Deputy ~-._to action against 731 responclentfa violated by it, the conditions in order, quash the building the Construction Company- up illegal construction upon the propeﬁ in grant such other reliefs as this Court deems to gr'antV'in.:the circumstances. :l'&é%::90.4~/2006 is filed by M/s.Paranjape :it"S_c,hemes,. (hereinafter referred to as "the __lQon4st1juction~. vllcompany') seeking for issuing a writ of ce11.io':5arivVtogquash the criminal proceedings initiated by the Criminal Complaint Nos.849/2006, 80/2007 and \\/ I0 opportunity to the parties herein and to pass such other order.

5. The contempt petition is filed... the nu petitioner in W.P.No.936/2006 andiissiziioor/2o»os violation of the interim order pass'ed"in W. the Construction Company and there.toi*e requested--.to~ punish the contemnor by initiating co'ntern'p_t against it.

6. The necessaiydtgrief this Judgment the learned the parties, Additional Government Adyocate of the Special Deputy Commissioner-V for "Development and learned counsel for Vand Polldtion Control Board.

: _W P Na-9r}3,6 [N me A' i r it '7. The" petitioner is a Merchant Navy Officer has filed petition-.on the ground that the State should ensure that f' has to be regulated by the Zmi respondent it has got jurisdiction of Pattandur Village and the V I] said area is included as Metropolitan Area in the notification dated 13/3/1984 in the Karnataka Gazette. It is % petitioner's father took possession of the 10.04 acres in Sy.No.I47/2, 148/1:;lAiee/1.V Pattandur Agrahara village as per thelhsaie adapted 20/4/1990 and the land got dis'integrated.. changed hands for convenience purpose a_nd_ -carltyroad came into existence.

8. The petiti:_o«net__ the respondent Construction and construction plan approved : of erstwhile Mahadevapura 'City 'Council who is not the cornpetent under_..th~e KT 81 CP Act. The said plan is in total *coritraverttion"t.o the terms and conditions imposed in eon've.r;:';ion' passed by the Special Deputy C7o,rnrr11ss1oner.. llrban Department in the plot upon which is being constructed by the Construction 2 The advertisement given by the Construction V Company in the Times of India dated 9/ 1 /2006, which indicates provisions for Doctor on Call and '"i'elemedic.i_rie..: Ambulance, shuttle bus services, diet--specific-..;.ca;nteen',"rd convenience store, business center," Internet '1'and"..VvidetgA' conferencing, putting green, swimmingvhphool, and club house besides library. place in the site plan and the elevation Produced as Annexures-D of the petitioner that thearini-exuifesiph of the Construction interest and it cannot be senior citizens. It is his further casvethatl 691 cross, which is about 20 feet road and. as avpublic road is doubtful as its mud road. Therefore, the Construction _Compa:riyf$h1asCA on the public by means of the said lliveiivs paper. advertisement inviting applications from the purchase of the plots. It is the further case of the Cu"~é.petitioner._Vthat if, public were to invest in the proposed group planned in the plot in questions. they would 'ix/"

be unaware of the ground realities and are liable t'o"--.pbe cheated. The future expansion of the project as the sanctioned plan will create more congestion---.c.an_§:l ]_tl1e'l advertisement given in the newspaper it"is«.Viriislead_ing f contrary to the actual and factual position shpovinvli sanctioned plan obtained from the'V"i'e:rstwhile' 'A/lahadevapura

9. The said converted the land in all comprisifiig lllrom the Special Deputy with a condition that 2 acres~,'334' shall be put to use for residence and 1 times} for public and semi public purpose. Eclonditinonsenumerated in conversion order of the Special"Depiitg,{Co1nmissioner dated 1 / 8/ 2003 is violated :f'by__t11e Company. The third respondent _erst\_vhil_e Citv Council did not visit the spot and did What would be the facilities needed in the is/ere to be complied with and ground realities \/ relating to other civic amenities being present. the absence of the road which is the only Way through which ingress and egress to the Main Road. The Officer or the commissioner of MCMC Cnever .vi'sited._tlie~area before sanctioning the plan in fa.vour:4oi'"the Company. The illegal constmctioinﬁs» were~.rriajde the Construction Company on thewproperty.

Mahadevapura City Municipal' the plan for construction the building bye--laws and therefore the same is liable to the it

10. The the petitioner is that the Congstructioxig it CompaI"1y..,.__haS contemplated to put up residentia1'_misleading as if it would be a luxury age' does not envisage a luxury ﬂat constmction'; Thiere is a car parking plan for 130 cars which under "no" circumstances can be a provision for senior citizen " age residences as advertised in the Newspaper. The \v/ property which is shown as a boundary on the western sidepis a strip of land belonging to the petitioners father, left as a cart road / mud road for personal convenience . property is a private land. The same does lnotv the village map or is it a kharab:4'V.}an_d belbnging Government. The said mud road the condition of the road is su'eh.A_ th«atm:_ a movement of two light motor?' 1;; opposite direction and no easily through the road, to photographs are produced by in

11. The petitioner ._af'te'r'«.:.'eoming to know about the intended o__f'the res'po.n.dent Construction Company, who had " « lvpnlbivicity in the newspaper about its Zfphxilanthropici of putting up residence for senior citiziensp, he had reasons to bona fide suspect that its :';init_en4'_tien islcaniouiiage with commercial activity is such that .petitioner has addressed letter to the Governor of 'W 2] respect of the land in question is regulated by the Zonal Regulations framed by the B D A. It is the duty of authority for Urban Development in terms of unlike agricultural land which is Revenue Authorities. The construction buildingby C Construction Company is an Urban::l3eVelopmepnt.V'upon" the land in question which is th:ett':t4¢t;9g§oi.:tan of the B.D.A. Therefore, the roads, has to be regulated by obtaining' by the B.D.A.. Therefore, the and the C.M.C. were enumerated inttbep con\}ersio'n__."order for sanction of the building plan --. and "li.ce'n'C'e in favour of the Construction Conipari3'iVis"' not by the Commissioner of _C.M.C.': this contention, the petitioner has strong rreliarice upon the Gazette notification dated and 'the Government Official Memorandum dated it discloses that sanction of plan and licence for construction of the building upon the \\w/ 22 converted land power vests with the B.D.A, but not withf'-the erstwhile Commissioner, C M C Mahadevapura.

15. The next ground of attack of theyi>mpu_gne1i: :ti0n.of~_vu " " the Construction Company is that obtained by it from the Commissioner-,.,..C n.ote..tIiat the environment clearance has to iliariiiataka Pollution Control Board mustlillbe of obtaining occupancy certificate_an_d imposed by the Board must be strictly law before the sanction of the of the building, obtaining certificate from the Board is a and the plan sanctioning authority 'talie lall.iV,rei_ex:=arit aspects into consideration thatth_ere is_Vcongei'1iaLivatmosphere for the occupants to live in teniainentalv of the building that would be constructed af'ter, eitamining the feasibility and satisfying by [itself there are basic civic amenities available to permit ., c, .. , Company to construct the building, the plan V 24 Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and started putting up construction without obtaining CF.E., as required under the provisionvS._"4$3:Vf':'tligf V. Water and Air Prevention and Control Acts referrecijg K V' Therefore. it is stated that there is a statuﬂtolrjr vio_lation_" C01}-.p_ part of the Construction Company' and:ther,applicatio'n" it for grant of C.F.E. before the Boar'd..:Was order dated 25.11.2006. The preferred an appeal against that order as Water Act in aPPe31 N0- 10/05 01'}. of the said appeal the application for impleading proper party in the said appeal. said application he had preferred a Writ ."'in."'W:l3.No.1591/2007 before this Co1irt.."'This' Coi1:rt:lh'entertai'ned the said petition and granted _an order. of further proceedings in appeal No. Atwplihgring the pendency of the said appeal the Company made an application to the Board on \x./ 26 review petition before the Board. It is stated that the petitioner made several representations to the Board furnishing several facts concerning environment ~ requested it an opportunity of being heai'd-i_n granted to him and the same was granted.an.d the '1':i_atter. fixed on 25.07.2007 for hearing. was heard for short time and th.e,_hearirig. for Want of time. in that processathe' the Board was away on a Foreign parties in the open Court that be informed to him by Postr ;PetitionVerVherein was under the impression that will be intimated to him and waitedforu from him. But he did not receive" any eoinfnnnication from Board. Therefore the Advocate intimated to the Board future hearing date if hearing of the a letter dated 06.08.00'? and further the resgiorident without informing further date of hearing to proceeded to grant order for CFE vide order dated \\u./ 29 obtaining commencement certificate from the Municipality Council, Mahadevapura. The V. Authority was made available the copy of modifiletl ll passed by this Court in Writ Petition :l\io.'"9«36-i_/O6 noticing the fact that interim order 'ltdateci modifying its earlier interim stat'iﬂ_gl"*l Construction Company shouldf' not statiitorylllaws. The said observations are Appellate Authority while petitioner herein. 1 c_ ll V2, V

19. The,/appellatel:::f:£111t'i«1lQrity further made an observation in the: stating that initially, the Construction is a 'proprietorship conc;_f*;i~'1.»,i?y_' itAAlf3'ec'arne 'partnership firm' which obserirlatiponlpis' The actual fact is that the ClonstructioniilCorn.pa:ny had claimed in the application dated .. , that.vifir.'3~is a paﬁ inn.

20. Further, it is stated that on totally irrelevant fact-ts, reasons and observations made by the appellate has dismissed the appeal affirming the grant of ' M of the Construction Company by the Boardin. Apeﬁgerpisye its review power under sub section (2) of of. Act is legal and valid in law.

21. It is further stated ''«that a matter of fact has passed CFE order dated-liip. alleged judgment dated does not find a place in reference.aNo~.rl;l':'t.p.._8 note of the order dated 12.10.2007," suspicion as on to why said documen'ts_Vhdid place if they existed at all as 03 order it jjassed by the Board on 12.10.2007. Eveniﬂ, sheet of the case examined by the Ziixppellate 'Ati;thority4s:'i__vfould have reﬂected the same in the Vynarratiori of faets'.';. The truth of the matter is that there is no the order--sheet, which leads to the presumption mai administration indulged by the Board in \t/ 31 concocting the said documents. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate and consider this important aspect of the matter, at the time of examining the correctness of granting the CFE in favour of the Construction 0. which indicates that the Appellate _.Authority''''' application of mind has passed in1ptxgned* 20.02.2008. On this ground lia'b1e"v§t0 be quashed. The Board has failedltoi. viAt:l_1»li_3_'_'1etter dated 06.08.2007 got sent his Advocate addressed to the hearing date of Review Petitioritllisl passed by the first respondent" in the Principles of Natural Justice ands -.fL_1rtiher.:lAA CFE in favour of the Constri1'ctionl.Co:r3pany byvﬂthle Board in exercise of the review ._power ) of the Water Act not noticed in Vthelifact that there- a__ statutory violation on the part of the Company in constructing the building upon the ., there being an access road to it and approval of plan and obtaining s ctioned plan and the "} and not noticing the ratio laid down by the 32 licence from the Commissioner of the erstwhile C.1\/I.C, Mahadevapura, who is not the competent Authority in law and further without obtaining CFE for construction building from the Board as required U / S 25 of the . is in Violation of the decision of the Supreme matter of Rural Litigation and Entitleémenty iﬂ State of U.P. reported in further placed strong reliance upon tithe Supreme Court in the case of;'~'Vir§11dra of Haryana reported in AIR the Apex Court while referringrdtov of United Nations in 197id"rn!ade " {he _ therefore affirms both aspects of eVnviro'nment, the natural and man " made' and theprotection is essential to his Well '~..be.i1ig~.a'n_.Vd the enjoyment of basic human r'ight's i.e», :1=i,vgiiti'Vto'1ife itself." ' .22. it. is" fuiirther urged that the grant of CFE by iiéeviiieimdiag its ea:-her order dated 25.11.2006 without hearing 'W notiﬁcation is produced at Annexure--C along with the petition. Clause 9 of the said notification 3 "Licenses for both orange and green category industries be issued by the Municipalities / Municipal the industry obtains Consent for EstablishIr1'ent the Karnataka State Pollution Control::Board";'* of Environment and Forest l'I1l§'#"'iiﬁEati0I1 bearing No.80 801 (E) dated by which after sub--clause ff] 'iiigofhiiinneittijre»--hB:VViAsiib--clause (g) and (h) were inter 31 being 'New Construction 'New Industrial Estates' was inter It is stated by the petitioner that of said notiﬁcation, any cons"t1fuhctiogn" fallingiinder Entry 31 of the Schedule - I including industrial townships, settlement colonies, cemniercial complexes, hospitals and office for 'i",0O0 (one thousand) persons or below or

4. 0, it0"d_iscl1aifgiiig"sewage of 50.000 (ﬁfty thousand) liters per day or \\N/ 39 below or with an investment of Rs.50.00,00,000/-- {Rupees Fifty crores} or below.

29. The Speciai Deputy Commissioner of Urban Department, Bangalore. has passed conversion' ~ in favour of the Niketan Shlters Pvt. Ltd ..u/st'p'9Si21}'r'iattire Karnataka. Land Revenue Act [hereinafter 7.: converting the land for non agricuitiiral p"a'rposeVVpdsit1iat'ed at Pattandur Agrahara, 3 Bangalore East Taluk in sq. ft. for public/Semi «. in Sy.No.147/4 admeasuring admeasuring 94,743 sq. ft. for residential as per its notiﬁcation bea;i11g_'No.,':i{PSiCB[2008 reclassified red / orange and greenV'cat~egoriies»'of' "industries. The apartments are included tStt....vi;tem the:'i.V'f§reen category. The petitioner further pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of '-4J:MKS;.Nii{etanf;She1ters Pvt. Ltd., on 03/03/2005 registered in t1ﬁ:ﬁ.j.i:1:§;§iSd.ictional Sub--Regi§\:\aj:}[ﬁce it purchased all that 40 piece and parcel of the converted land for 3, sale consideration of Rs.6.82 lakhs {Rupees six crores and eighty two lakhs). The said Niketan Sheiters Pvt. Ltd., along with M /s.Para_I1j'-adp_e'.,' Schemes Construction Ltd., formed partner-si:1ip.:lp:'V"Ton " 16/9/2005 duly registered under the it whereby the said converted property was.ltranAsferred.,Ain ..faVolt:i1*..T'l': of the said Constructions Limited. V '-iiiherefore, absolute owner of the said prop.erty.,<'""

30. M/ ifhtjonsltruction Ltd., Bangalore, the memorandum of understandinglk 'V Foundation, a company incorporated u/ -oi' 'C:oitipanies Act, 1956 being a Chglltahle mxirhereby the petitioner would construct apa1't'me1it the Iand bearing Sy.No.147/4 and '12 fof and M/s.Athashri Foundation shall .preVi,de_,pcertainp services for the beneﬁt of senior citizens. The M/s.Athashri Foundation have developed two I3t--.;3je.cts for senior citizens n pursuance of a similar 4;

arrangement. The Commissioner, CMC Mahadevapura has issued licence dated 8/ 8/ 2005 as per the Government Order bearing No.HUD 80 BLR 96 dated 7/ 3/ 1996 for construction-».vv of apartment building comprising of ground + ~ ﬂoors consisting of 1 18 apartments in theiirst subject to it obtaining environmental'clearance-- KSPC Board, which must be at ' of occupancy certificate and con..d.itions'impose-d by the-'Pollution Control Board to be adhezred 2

31. Petiti--o--ner"'~.ftirti3,Aer one Mr.C.J.Singh filed a writ petition~iri "Public Interest litigation before this Court » Vwfhiclii M/s.Paranjape Schemes Construction. Bangalore, wherein the petitioner herein *'.as..,:"R,evsBp'ondent No.7- Pollution Board, CMC, :i':Bv'M_ahadex}apuBra,.éMunicipal Council and B.D.A are also respondents. Initially in the Public Interest this Court restrained the petitioner Paranjape Construction Ltd.\§{$cWa'rry1'ng out construction of 42 the building in the said property. Application was ﬁled for vacating the interim stay dated 1/ 3/ 2006 permitting the petitioner to commence the construction of the building'u_pon~.vv obtaining commencement certiﬁcate subject to ~ the writ petition. According to the pe1;itio_ner, plan was issued in accordance with and zonal Regulations, the lhnot' .Vco.nt'eiﬁpiate obtaining environmental clealjance,-at-.lithe"-»c.time"of.. issue of sanctioned plan from"

32. The =%v.vd":.§Elpp1ication forms to the Board 1.1/s 25/26 of the Water Act 11/ s 21 of the Air {Prevention}-31 Po'llntion) Act, 1981. As per the "of theWPol1ution Control Board dated 317/E5/A2'OO'€"i__it that the application was submitted the peti'tioner viihich was duly ﬁlled and no details were missing stand petitioner was not putting up construction on 1' said'-property in vie nterim order passed by this 43 Court in the PIL filed by C3. Singh. Further it is stated that the Pollution Control Board by its letter dated 30/6/2006 has directed the Construction Company not to proceed further construction activity upon the property, failiirg ~ criminal case would be initiated against it,

33. it is further stated that as per the ololseryationﬂoif70.: Board one consolidated appiicatiori-.,:yvas submittle-d Construction Company for. property and no fees was paid to the same, the petitioner replield./to;ll'1t;hel " that neither they have received any: on l0/4/ 2006 nor the property was inspected' official of the Board on 5/5/2006 that their application to take perrnission""l\/Iinistry of Environment and Forests ficcordingiythe sanctioned plan it was required to _ time of obtaining occupancy certificate. stated that the application to MOEF on for deve1opmen said property which 44 included first and second phase property stating that inter aiia construct totally 206 apartments and the said property'fi.s"'--_' to be developed for senior citizens.

34. It is its further case that the;Bogiijd;iésiié=,d--.ipu.b1i{§ notice dated 21/7/2006 in the I-Iinvdug_'nevlVs._vr)a.per for Environmental Public Hearing l'fi2.00 noon. The petitioner on an Evaluation Report to and Technologr parks, Vtllccupancy Status and the Efﬁu.ents..,_/ the building in order to facilitate its application for grant of CEF withladditionall]"iiintter information and further it has. a ietter..____dated 3/8/2006 requesting the Department' Ecology and Environment for leXe_nf1ption'ifrom ohitaining prior environmental clearance to Véthe-ihniiding in vcguestion as it is being constructed for Senior It had also addressed letter dated 5/ 8/2006 1Vl1OEF for necessary action with respect to the \\\/ 45 aforesaid letter. In fact the petitioner vide its letter dated ll/8/2006 informed the Ministry of Ecologr, and Forest that the notiﬁcation Annexures-"B" 8: H 27/ 1 / 1994 and 7 / 7 / 2004 respectively are not the Building in question in the caseof for the reasons stated therein.

35. The petitioner has appiications in the prescribed Forinf , -- OG on 13/6/2006 to the 1§;oan:;i:':tif§:;§p crs u/s 25 of the Water Act. 0' (Prevention and Control of Polltitionj inspected the property in question on the application is dulyvﬁied. "acknowledgements bearing Nos. 1275 and V1276."'rirespgcmnéiy. on 13/6/2006 for Phase 1 5: 11 :L=t'esp.ectiVelypfor hayvirigdrireceived applications. According to the Vppetitioner as Section 25(7) of Water Act, it is deemed that has issued to the petitioner CFE as per the 0 applications ﬁled by the Construction Company. in \M/ 46 support of its contention it had placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vijayanagar Education T1'i.__1_St (Regd) Bangalore Vs., K s P c B reported in AIR 2oo2d*Kai~'*i~cy

123. it is the further case of the petitioner that the A i' not replied or responded to it with regardto. forms submitted by it from the date of 25/11/2006. The petitioner has pi~"ooo'oedj, eeiiioee copies of the criminal coInp1ai_nt_ﬁiedon/ against the petitioner by the in Perusal of the documents is clear that the petitioner plot in question, which is factualiy 8 of the said complaint discloses theifact of document No.4 referred to was inspected by' the Board on .,17/6/ that the construction work was due. t0_'\t1ae"t\7vrit petition before this Court. The '.3 to the complaint, the alleged mahazars 0 Z3-it/'Z606, show cause notice dated 10/4/2006 did not {be_ar~the"signature of any person Working for the petitioner, \N/ 47 who were said to have been present at the time of conducting mahazar by the officials of the Board and received the cause notice. The public interest litigation".iVV;'F{' . No.14956/2006 was ﬁled by C.J.Singh on.t.25/10/i2ooésp.i petitioner had ﬁled an appeal before the:':AppeilVate against the refusal order passed by -.Board in CFE urging various grounds and prayedtto set aside vthevvsaine and grant CFE in its favour.

36. The grounds» are that the petitioner is reqiJ.iré'd'_:xto~1 only when the 511: respondent "certiﬁcate as per the conditions stipulate-din plan. Further it is contended Ethe_appli'c:a.ti_ons ﬁled by it before the Board were the stipulated mandatory period ti'/ss_.'V25[7) ofithfe and therefore it has to be declared that_there is grant of CFE in favour of the petitioner iofdiaw. Further it is stated that petitioner has "airead'v"got% environment impact assessment clearance and it 'tN/ 48 has duly complied with the directions of the Board with respect to the construction activities and no criminal committed by it. As such no crimina} action can M against them. For the reasons stated aiboye; it that there is no application of rnindpon oi for rejection of the applications for of it has caused irreparable is in violation of fundamental rights petitioner under the Constitutior;:««;oi" Iriidiagipl stated that construction of by it as per the sanctioned plan by the C.M.C of Mahadevapura -«petitioner had undertaken all the measures: to thevprovisions of law. The act of the is in Violation of the fundamental rights of the which is Vioiative of Articles 14, & 2"}--- of-jthc:"Constitution of India. Further it is the Construction Co., that the Board did not have the _ "a"_u.tl"101fi~ty".to"fi1e the criminal cases against it as the same is "application of mind and complying with the it/"

49 provisions of Section 15 of Environment Protection Act «of 1986. As such no penal action could have been against the petitioner. Therefore, the Construc't:iori:V=Co'."§ C submitted that it is entitled for the reliefsllas' «prayed the writ petition.

37. In the said writ petition, one Sri C J Singh, who is the referred public interest writ petition to permit him to come on revslpondent in the proceedings prayed by the Construction person in View of the pendency of litigation initiated by him againstthe sarne property' against the same Construction Co., The' is opposed by the Construction Co., objections inter alia contending that Ah.ay.ingirpegard to 'the nature of the prayer sought for by it in petition, the impleading applicant is neither a it party nor a proper party to the proceedings and he \\\l/ 50 has no locus standi to come on record as a party and oppose for grant of any one of the reliefs as prayed in the ,, as the lis is brought by it against the Board'«'._'::seeitiVn§§ declaration from this Court about its"'entiti.ei'nentfV:to_ beneﬁt flowing from Section 27(5) of the Act of the project proposed by it. Therei'ore,. it 'stai:'ed.= the application filed by the llavvlfriylolous application with a View to Co., Therefore, it is submittedppifzy counsel that the impleading is liabie to be rejected.

38. With hreferencei aforesaid rival legal conte.;*1ti_onsf_.:p'iifhep' following .... points would arise in these proceedings" -of above referred Writ petitions for :Q:01r~1..,S~1,C1eraf1f<3A.,1.dl:l u C _ 3 w i» Nodliddssegzeoe:

there is a contravention of Condition Nos.1 . to 5 of the Conversion Order dated 1/ 8 / 2003 passed by; the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore by C .4 " -the Construction co.,?

\\i/ 2*"?

51 (2) Whether the Construction C0,, was required.V_pto_C'get the layout plan approved from the _..Bfangalor"e, Development Authority under Section_---§32A""olf- Bangalore Development Authority A_ct~,., as of the " " Conversion V stipulated in Condition No Order'? ' (3) Whether the building in questioiiis a or a Single Building?

(4) Whether the com::_riencement..of--.,the c'onvstrv;£ction of the building upon th:~e_ pldt in question on the basis of the sanctioned plan' by the CMC, as on that date, CFE was -'not'~~.fgranted by the Karnataka State s'Pollution.jj-Control Board and therefore .constn1ct.io1€1 of the_b'uild--ing is illegal? (5) Whether V. 6: the building is in violation of tli'ci-2,Zonal-._Regulations and Building Bye laws appIie;a_.ble'3to the plot in question? (6) Whether" there is"any«.._violation of fundamental rights or statutory rights of-'the neighbouring residents in particular th_e"residents of the locality in general or other__citizens"b;.rconstructing the building in the plot . .VWithout obtaining CFE from the Board as on that ' date.anri-.n'o---_public road access either te ingress or egressﬁto {the building, thereby public injury is ' caused. 'anrlell therefore public interest is affected? 'W P i§¢i.%iioo/2008:

'*:{'E)C.VWliether the Construction Co., had the statutory _ right for seeking review of the earlier order of the [Board under Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974? iv 52 [2]VVl1ether the Pollution Control Board has gotfpoiver to review its order of refusal to grant CF of the Construction Co.,?

[3] Whether the review order is passed ind compliance with the provisions or Section___25{7)"tghe Water (Prevention and Control offI3ollution)_.Act,'v _"i974 and in compliance of _ 6 justice? "

(4) Whether the grant of favour/I of the Construction Co.,, 'is~..gby_«the Pollution Control Board and whether there""isgprotper:. delegation of power by the Board in favour oi'-thefChai1*1nan';£o*r reviewing its earlier order of rejection.' 'for issuing CFE in its favour?

W P No.18§04_r/"._?l(566: jjfl'T;i (1) Whetheri'A~til1.e notiﬁcation _-dated 21/6/2003 issued under -the p'rov,1'_sionsc.__Vof the Water [Prevention and Control "of Pollution}---..'Act, 1974» is applicable to the construction ac.tiv'ity.of the Construction C0,, in view of_non--men,tioning"of the nature of buildings at entry :3/iof the First Sch cdule to the Notiﬁcation? (2);"l»nvi.ew 'o.f6'"th_e application ﬁled by the Construction .C.o.', v..,t'e_tl1ei'-Board in Form No.1, Form No. 13 and the 'gacknoWl'edgT'ements 1275 & 1276 dated 13/6/2006 obtained «by the Construction Company, since no actior1v._ taken by the Board within the stipulated AA period of limitation as provided under Section 25(7) poi'-.the Water [Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act', 1974 by fiction of law, whether there is deemed grant of CFE in favour of the Construction Co.? \~x~/ the 'principlegsy ' natural l " , 53 (3) Whether the Construction Co., is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition? CCC No.23]. of 2008:

(1]Whether there is any deliberate 21nd"-intentions} uh' disobedience of the interim order' dated -:1 W P No.4100/2008 passed 'by this Court by-the Construction Co., by c0nstructi._ng~._the b1:i]din'g the plot in question and the allegations.,of~.ec'0nteznpt of court of this Court "'in"i»car1yir2g<>n with the construction work by it in__the._pIot is a"eivAi1Vc"ontempt committed by it is fit liable' "for conviction and sentence? . 1 ..

(2) What order'?_=~ e If:

39. The formulated by us in these proceetdindvgst' anstyered by us in seriatirn case -wise by iassigntirigwgwtttthe V to1E.oWi.:ig reasons: POINT Nos,1 & :'W.r-.No.§éV6/2006: litiabove" CCCC Mare inter-re1ated and therefore ansW"ere'ci_e. Special Deputy Commissioner of :Cv.V_Ba*nga1ore'--.c4on 'application filed by the erstwhile owner of . ..:ﬁg«.praperty 'in__aquestion passed an order of conversion dated by exercise of his power u/s 95(2) of the KLR Act to terms and conditions to be adhered to by the \/ 54 owner. The conditions enumerated in the order are very relevant to be extracted in this judgment, they V. hereunder:

"1. The beneﬁciary has any r:'."ghts'exc-nepte get, a permission from the competent authority V' Development Authority, C.l\/LC./T.Me.C'../Pollution " Control Board/Village l--"'anch2zyat for the purpose, for which the permission is grarited. '

2. The converted land shallubeljutilized lathe extent of 2 Acres 33 gu-ntas Kfoij' _the- fjp.u13p_ose of residential and 1 acre 37 guntasffor tl1e"ptlrpose of public/serni~»~public'.-- V The "shall '.n9t'»' utilize Without prior pe;1n'lssion::__ g

3. The const1:11cti'on4_"shalI"be eonstructed as per the ,_p--lan__' sanctioned by the Development Board /-i3lvIC}'~TMC / Pollution Control .Board/Village' Panefiayat"pujqnlorting to construct under the sanetion.Vlayout"an'd;'license etc.,

4.Land sh_all=be reserved requiring to road _1Vnarg1n,_%_ road vacant etc., as per the sanction layout" 'plan 58: License sanctioned by the 'lfleveigopmentp 'Board / CMC /PRM / Pollution Control Board. * It obligation of the applicant to provide 'civic amenities like electricity, water and "-Cffsewerage £tt"c.. In View of the public interest sanitation and Safety as per the law in the said laf1d'o--f site owners.

:2"._a"V.Dep11ty.Afﬁornrrllssioner in exercise of his statutory power

6. Land shail be reserved for the Government purpose as per the SE 67 of the Karnataka Land...' Revenue Act 1964 if found any bit pct Kharab , ' the said land and 0.02 guntas of land corr.¥_es"' under (B) Kharab consisting in Survey NO.14_J8__/2 L" in the said converted Iand. The same shaii--- " _ reserved for the public purpose and theap-p1ican't=. does not have any right over said Kharab..land_ and V .. the rights of the extent (B) Kharab land is beljeng' " y to Government to that effect th'c.__Tahasildar enter the same in R.T.C.

7. The distance of .4«0..&_meters'Afromi' the center of the road national VSt.ate ﬁhighwtayd and 25 meters for district road not to 1 cons'tr_uct any construction In the-purporti11g'Ath"e..y$aid land as per the Government' 'Order *No;PWD= 7556.--__.6?E35R and Central Governi--n4e1itV.TransjportJﬂfepartment vide its Letter No.P1 /'_.€'(ii)6'7"-dated ]:"496';§

8. Conveirsion 'o4rder'e»..s11a11- be stand cancel without assigiiingvanyi _order-- if' contravention of above conditions' andj.ac~tion;"' shall be taken to impose any penhaltyas pe"1'.$'E/96 of KLR Act 1964 and the ., expenditure "for the same shall be 4' .recovere:yg;1 as per t1*1e.arrears of land Revenue. '«.,order Wlth regard to the said . subjecteda:1y..~~decision of Courts suit/writ v V petition-,+"appea3.'f'5= Front 'vreadiI1g of the aforesaid conditions, Speciai 95(2) of KLR Act after satisfying the request \m/ 56 made by the owner passed the conversion order to useythe agricultural land for non agricultural purpose. As seen from Condition No.1, the beneﬁciary of the order has got right to make use of the property non agricultural purpose after obtaifling l3errn_issiO1l"if1':0kn it competent authorities namtelgr Authority/CMC/TMC/Pollution'~~..A. cmoioilei,Board/wage Panchayat for the purpose 'AA-lip-ermission is granted in favour The contention urged lC.J.Singh by the Senior Counsel tttt is that the property in "the Local planning Area, which is thepﬁangaloreggl'Ileyeloprnent Authority as per the wherein Schedule--I discloses the list included in the Local planning Area eijyirons of Bangaiore and the boundaries mentioned in the schedule',"'the property in question falls within the said .. 'Therefore, the Local Planning Authority is the ';9angalore"Development Authority and the provisions of B D A \\v 57 Act are applicable to the property. Hence Section 32 of the BDA Act is attracted. That is, what is stated conversion order by the Special Deputy Commissioner. while = C passing the conversion order in respeci'tWof"the«.y propertyin question. The said contention has gybeenl'seriousiylcolrivtested_V" by the learned Senior Counsel Sri US on Construction Co., contending of the building upon the property in fV'is_€i:"rAion'agricultural purpose but Section attracted is evident from the Section 26 of KT & CP Act read' _th:elllli(a1nataka Planning Authority Rules." neither subdivision of a plot or forrnaftion old or laying the private street and:'Vtherefor'el layout is not required to be approved thy the under Section 32 of the 13 D A Act. Therefore, he wouiztsubmits that provisions of the EDA Act {llareV:'not._uattractedC. to the facts of the case. Hence Condition /; n'ot"violated by the Construction Co., in not obtaining ilayoutjplan from the BDA and getting the sanctioned plan \\\\L/ 58 from the Commissioner of Mahadevapura City Municipality and construction of the building in question upon the converted property is not in violation of the conversion order. Therefore, there is no public injury or public suffered as alleged by the petitioner who has M pubic cause and therefore he submits urged in this regard are wholly untenab1e'i_n;:1ayv, " to be rejected.

41. With refereinceddliiétci tiieabove rfivaiiegal contentions urged on behaifof thevbhpaiftiesg».jyvehave..Carefu11y examined the provisions of VSec'tio1'i D" A Act, which reads as follows:

"432. of 'new...extensions or layouts or A V ..1_naI:ing:1'1ew private streets: ('3) '~"Not'wi'thstanding anything to the contrary 7 in any'1'av€r for the time being in force, no "pers__on-.s'ha}1 form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of V A. , constructing buildings thereon without the V express sanction in writing of the . "Authority and except in accordance with i such conditions as the Authority may specify:

\~/ 59 Provided that where any such extension or layout lies within the local limits of the Corporation, the Authority__4*'.p."*r_ * shall not sanction the formation of such extension or layout without concurrence of the Corporation;

Provided further that} Where "the . 2 V Corporation and the y»i*'a1,1.thority" do agree on the formation oi'--,o'r..the conditions relating to the extensionl""~or .layoL'tt,~._the F the"

matter shall referred "=__to Government, whose Virlecisionp thereon shall be final. r = (3) Any person ii1tending._toiforxn"'an'*extension or layout or to inall[r,e_fa 'p1fiyat.e street, _ shall send to the (Com1ni'ssioner)"af~ Wiitten application with _pl.an's "ai*:;;_l.._ s_eetions-----....s'hoWing the following part'iVo1.1'lars:.-4"~.,_ « (al J the laying out lofthe--.si'to's of the area upon streets; e .lan{;ls or op'er; (spaces; tit?Vintended*leVel.,v direction and Width of A the street;

(tel.

r i " (Cl \ __thle y".a,lignrnent and the building line * and the proposed sites abutting the st__ree_t's; , LA the arrangement to be made for levelling, paving, rnetalling, flagging, channelling, l sewering, draining, conserving and lighting {the streets and for adequate drinking water supply.

V _ the V I 60 (3) The provisions of this Act and any rules or bye~laws made under it as to the level and width of streets and the height of buildinggs . __ 5 _.__ abutting shall apply also in the case.-tof streets referred to in sub-section . all the particulars referred tc~in..tha._t sub'-up section shall be subject to the apgprolvyal of. ' ' the Authority. " ' -.

(4) Within six months after the receipt of' application under sut_i--sectio_n it ' ~12), the Authority shall either sanctiion , forming of the extension or layout of street on s1_rch_ cor1diti'ons_'asf~iVt m::ay think ﬁt or disallow it =io1"" as}: forw further info1*rnation_tvifitl;'i respect to it,' V (5) The'Auth.oirity 'fnay"req11i1'e the applicant to deposit, befo-re_Vsanctioni11g the application, the '',sums -- meeting the expenditure for inal{in.g roads, side--drains, cu_lVerts',"=undergroun'ci drainage and water siiipply and 'A lighting and the charges for 'such-ti. other purposes as such applicant 'vmay Vbeycalled upon by the Authority, _preVi'd..ed " ~t_h_e applicant also agrees to . tr,ansfe.r~.. the ownership of the roads, ACluI'3iI1S~, hlivater supply mains and open spaces laid out by him to the Authority permanently without claiming any it 'compensation therefor.

l' ..._lltl[(l5-V}fa) Notwithstanding anything contained in V' this Act, the Authority may require the V (11)

(iii) applicant to deposit before sanctioning the application such further sums in addition V to the sums referred to in subsection to meet such portion of the expenditureas the Authority may determine towards the execution of any scheme _or__wor_--k "forj V e1'ectr_ici_ty,.__ " V augmenting water supply, roads, transportation and"':.st1_ch'i other amenities within , the Metropolitan Area] ' (6) Such sanction maybe reftisend5--VV:"' If the proposed street would 'c.onﬂictii"-\ﬁ_»ithV__ any arrangements which have. been-. rnade or which in the opinion gvofppthe Authority"if_jl_ikeIj,7 to be made for carry_ing£>o_ut.V any general scheme of street 1mpr{uVetneiivt1'_V_ o1~._».__o<:her 'V,sc«hemes of development or expansion by Attthority; or if the praoposedelmfreetp does..____not' conform to the provisions.' of the~.V"Act,._."r1,1les and bye--1aws referred to in sub--sect~io:1 [31 or if the proposed 'street is not designed so as to "connect. at one elnd--~~With a street which is 'already . or. V [(iii_~a}__i.f "the_~..pro'posed extension or layout is on the laneiidgvhich is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the development scheme underithis Act, and in respect of which a at notiﬁcation under sub-section (3) of V' ..Se"ction W is already published; or} V A Bangai,ore 1

(iv) if the layout in the opinion of the Authority cannot be fitted with any existing or proposed _ expansion or development schemes of ' Authority.

(7) is) No person shall form a layout '()I'*--1TI'A1E11'K('3 " . new private street without the s-auction of'- _ or otherwise than in conforri'iity-vfvtith "the. = conditions imposed by,='th__6 Aulthority.i»'l'"if~_.._H the Authority requires fuijther information from the applicant no stepsshall be"tal<en F layout for "make th'e'"

by him to form the street until orders.._lf;ave_ by the Authority after the freceipt'uof such information: H _ Provideil.._...that.:_ passing of such orders isha:l_I";not';" in_"any"'case';. be delayed for _.more._ than months after the Authority" has'. 1*eceiy'ed_ all _' the information which it'considers»e.neee'ssa1y to enable it to deal ﬁnally With'-the application. Isf_§jthe.Autho:3ilty does not refuse sanction w_1'th:r1 six months from the date of the 'V.app1ication~.,under sub--section (2) or from the d'a_te»vof.re.eeipt of all information asked for u'1ider"sub--section (7), such sanction shall Vb.e_"d.eemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form the extension or layout or to make the street, 'A but not so as to contravene any of the 'provisions of this Act and the rules or bye- aglaws made under it.

\x/

(i) of his plot and details of 63 (9) Any person who forms or attempts to form . c any extension or layout in contravention of T . the provisions of subsection (1) or makes ' » any street without or otherwise thangin '' conformity with the orders of the Authority V under this section, shall be »liable;""'on_';. ' _ V conviction, to a fine which ;_nay"e::tendi'to__V " V ' ten thousand rupees. .. '

42. The said provision of the to be read along with Rule 36 of the_zKarnatalta'*Plarining Authority Rules, 1965 which reads V' l V' . ll "36. Particulars _ reg"ardi_ng= Vlayoizt plan and period.' fEii"'..__$a21gcti'oIJ,b.dfg plan under Section ~v..1'i?.~:'(_l] E-very'<pe.r_s"on fsubinitting a plan"for.csub-divisionlof pl_ot"or a layout of a private st'ree_t=to"«the--._lF'lanning Authority for sanction. un.dervS_ection 17 shall submit such plan in"--tri'plicate which shall not be less in si:I.e"'than thelolne to be prepared on agjscale of It 600 (1 inch - 50 inches) and vshall-e.include therein such of the following y zpartioulars, as may be relevant to the lhayoyuta, .v~ proposed land use;

e site plan showing the existing access to _ »_th"e land included in the layout and the surrounding lands;

Xv 64

(iii) the dimensions of each of the proposed sub--divisions;

(iv) width of the proposed streets; and (V) dimensions of open spaces provided_-for" " the layout Plan. " -- * (3) The period within which PIanir.iin'g' ' Authority may sanetion'or'«-refuse to sanction' a layout submitted to it"'-ulrider Se.ctiori 1? shall be ninety days fro1n'vthe_V date"of,. its receipt by the Plarijning Authority."~--_ [(2~A] The Planning Auti;ori:y»iisayrriiies5 fee specified in column {2} of.'l'ableVi'--belovv. for the purposes specified in-. column" (.l)"th'ereof, - Sl.No. A 'Q it Rate of Fee 1 Scrutinylﬂof Léiyoutgp 'Pl.a'1:.,s' and "[One paisa per square designs __ -- an"d*~-.» _effec-tirig metre of land subject to a modiﬁcations ' :1 ._ minimum of five rupees] 2 Supply of'-leoppies' _of.plar_is or Sixteen rupees per square L maps__ V w meter of plan the plan, there is a reference in Ifieetion CP Act. This provision of the Act 'sanction of the plan for sub-division of private street. Section 26 of KT & CP Act, it for town planning scheme and its contents. Sub- A sfe'e.ti>or1~.(é) of Section 26 of the above Act reads thus: \\\/ 65 [2] Such town planning scheme may make . , provisions for any of the following matters T namely.» (a] the laying out or relaying out of land, I either vacant or already built upon";''' " " ' [13] the ﬁlling up or reclamation ~'of1*.oW~_g' A lying, swamp or unhealthy7areas_.".o1f " ' levelling up of land; " _ ' ' [c] lay--out of new styreets 'nor ro'ad,s;_.' construction, V 'diveifsioni; .__ ,e;>ctension, alteration, improVe.rnent } and stopping up of streets, :ro'ads'5._';p .. and communications';''''*». V I .. * (C1) the 'eori;st.rueti_on",--w.._ '-alteratrion and removal buiidingrs, bridges and other str11_c'tu;res:,,_ » V

(e) 'the-- aliotniienétl orreservation of land for roads, ' "spaces, gardens, rec're4at1on .gr'o_u"ndfs, schools, markets, green' belts and dairies, transport facilities" "-an_d__vpubl1'c purposes of all l:in.d's.;A V' ._{f) i'draiVnage,--:inclusive of sewerage, surface or '--',;~:_u?E)--soil drainage and sewage c1_isp0~sal:

., lg) 'lighting:

' '(:1)' water supply;

\\m/ of KT & (3? Act, it makes it very clear that layout 66

(i) the preservation of objects of historical V _ or national interest or natural beauty i and of building actually used religious purposes; -3 M

(j) the imposition of conditions.'''''andH '' V . restrictions in regard to the o'pen7sp~ace_" = . " V to be maintained about 'buii'dingsi;»._the' percentage of building area for a p1.t3t;" l' the number, size, height and character''''-- of buiidings allowed in,speciﬁed__areas, the purposes to Whic}:i'v.__bu_ildings«._or_.' speciﬁed areas'~~..may or 1j_naiyc~-_not be appropriated, the isu'b--d.i\fision..,of» plots, the discontinuance of objectionable users of land in"'a'ny::a.reafin reasonable periods; parkirig spaceland loading and unlo«adingi._ space for any ' building and the _ -:j_si'Zes r i_ projections and Vi,adverti_s'eri1ent'signs; I

(k) 'the lsuspe'nsien;=--.__so far as may be necessary fcr'the«.__pi'oper carrying out of the c ~, _scvhen<3se ,A A or any rule, bye-law, 5' regulat-ion,' "notification or order, made or issued' under any Act of the State igegislature or nay of the Acts which .g the 'State Legislature is competent to it ati"1endf;y""

'{'i--._} s.jjuci'2 bother matter not inconsistent with the objects of this Act as may be prescribed.

reading of the aforesaid sub--section (2) of \\m/ 67 plan or laying out of land is for the purpose of-"'-the development of housing scheme in respect of 3 either the development authority or a private'.__:develnper--w.4--l develop the land for the purpose of laying' providing necessary particulars rnentione.d'd'i_r1 sub~;33.A¢:c'tion'i--.(l2)i V' of Section 26 of KT 6: CP Act and by of Rule 36 of the Karnataka': 1965 speaks of layout plan and plan u/ s 1'?

to the planning of plan and details of proposed: (2) of Rule 36 of the Rules Authority Within the period of 90 or refuse the layout plan submitted toit 'V of 8: CF Act from the date of its receipt"by Authority. Section 32 of the B D A Act lilaitining Authority of the B D A has to "sanction the layotit plan for forming new extensions or A orpeirnaking new private streets. The said provision 'speaks that "notwithstanding anything contrary to the time being in force, no person shall form or \\w/ 68 attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose----.yof constructing buildings thereon without the in writing of the authority and except in accord'a.nceA't.'-vvi'th' such conditions as the authority provision is read along with Rule 36 of the-.l3:'lanning-C'-A.u'thori Rules, 1965 makes it very clear that:sul:)divis.ion.v':ofplot is referred to under Section if this provision is read along with & C I3 Act for the purpose oi' in the Comprehensive Town Planning Scheme requiriedllptol by the developer as provided which clearly state that there is no heed r¢1~tt.ﬂ*,eei Construction Co., obtaining plan 'approved. Local planning Authority as the ._Constructio=n_of=the_h.uilding by the Construction Co., is not purpose'-..'oi nnplementation of the proposals contained inM_'t'h4e'" .Comprehensive Development Plan, structure to form /; _of various dimensions and forming the streets, roads iorpentspace and number of sites are not formed by it for the \r./ s 70 REASONS The contentions urged by Iearned Senior appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the publilel' H litigation petition is that the building inqu-estion housing in terms of the deﬁnition of Bye law 2.40. But there are ﬂats'-in the building, they are dwelling. .}1nit§s"iri* néfc'1eV\l":A.._lloorA.-- HThveref0re said building as per J§ht?::.:t§Ib1€ laws, table 24 of the Zonal square meter is rnorethan 100(}' in meters must be over 15 metersgalndl «is a group housing and therefore the:Planning_:'Authorilty'" the B.D.A. Undisputedly the :_l'ieeI1¢e is not issued by the said sanctioned plan by the City :M:i;1~1~1i.r:ipality.44:_of _Ma_li'adevapura is without Authority of law. ..Th-efjsaidcgontentidn is strongly rebutted by the learned Senior it t'U.I.Bhat, placing strong reliance upon the plot or site under Bye law Clause 2.66 of the \\»«/ 71 Building Bye laws and Bye law Clause 8.0 which defines "means of access" and placing reliance upon table »o:f't_i;ie" Zoning of Land Use and Regulations to show thatﬂthegbuiilding' _ in question is not a group housing orlit does not g more than two buildings in a plot with or with one or more dwelling units in flooring are connected by an access of tlfian width or the building is not approachValole_VV existing road.

46. w:tht.e.ulrei"efeﬁcette to: the 'move said rival legal contentions wehave shame very carefully and we are required to lt;he'._Vsanie against the petitioner for following reaisonls. pg For "fl1lS...}}"L1I'p0S€ it is necessary to refer to the defiriitions housing" and "plot or site" under Bye Zilawvclause. 2.66 of the Building Bye Laws, which A deﬁnges group housing, the same reads as follows: _ e _ "€2.40 'group housing' means more than _ _' two building on a plot with one or more ﬂoors and one or more dwelling units in each ﬂoor.

-. fl' hey are connected by an access of not less than \m/ 73 the deﬁnition of "group Housing" as deﬁned in clause 2.40--.of the Bye--laW as extracted above. According to this there must be more than two buildings on a plot 'o_:r:Ied.4_or' C more floors and with one or more dwelling units"«_1'r1*'each-uﬂoory f and they must be connected by an accessA'ofCnot less. meters in width and they are not approachable. from the road. The said deﬁnitiq.-ﬁ:4"'does'Ai.noti':'ﬁt'~\..i'r1to thebuilding which is being constructed by upon the plot as per the issued by the City Municipality? favour of the Construction of the Writ petitioner in ' building in question is a "group Housing" gcannotyybe"'acc=epted by this Court. ,:.V'F'u.1fthe1" Bye law clause No.8.1 the means of access todthe' building in question means exclusive access than thorough public roads and streets and shall not be .than.V.3dO'rA_«meters in length, public road from the street. width of such access shall be 3.5 meters and \m/ 74 further construction of building with plots of common ac "ess shall be regulated according to such common acce-ssfi' The learned Senior counsel on behalf of the Construction has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid Building clauses which are applicable to the bu__ildi_ng qtuestlioliili it Therefore We have to accept his sub1niission.a1i.d'l'iold is not a "group Housing" to attracts-"'th'e'~ Table No';'9'*"of the Building Bye laws as contended Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioilierilin must be public road, widthioif in square meter is over 1000. meters must be over 15 meter is not correct as' is not apP1iC3b1€ t0 the building in qu_.e.stion"." we answer the said point in favour' V company and against the petitioximf PlI;"petition§~~ V48. construction of the building is not a group =:éhousing:e»andi--further we have stated that "means of access" to is/i 75 the Building is very much available, this aspect is clearfrom clause 8 of the Building Bye laws, which reads thus:p'....._'4: " 8.1 The means of exclusive access other"'thanf. I thorough public roads and streets, Sh"a'H--,I'iOt"= be of more than 30 meters in length from a ' . public road or street. The minimum v'vid'th"'of" such access shall be 3.5 meters;_F.A.R.;y'and" é height of buildings coming up on siicli'V_plo'ts... connected by means of exclusive accessshall be regulated according to the width oi-".publ_i£: street or road. If the means 'o._f'ac"eess exceeds 30.00 meters 111-«.__'j?.engti1V-,w. "shall be regulated with reference'tol'the_.}x7idth of such access road. Construction of'v,_v/aiding on plots with «common §a,ccess7'lanesVf'from the public roati/street shal.lj.V be" regulated according 0' jto" 'the "W-idlthp of such common access roa'ds:'.{lanes=.. ~ 'A 8.2 Existing lco.nservan.cy~...l_anes are not allowed to 'be'4used~.as'=rr1ea_n.s: of access to the properties. ' V' ' 8.3 ~l:~uilding_shall be erected so as to obstruct ._'tl*se inileans ofaecess of any other building. 'TVTOA 'shall erect a building so as to "~"¢I1cro.ach upon the means of access. ' 8.5 The V-.rnea'ns of access shall be clearly shown in the; plans submitted indicating the Width. at length from the public road, Width of the V' , public road from which the access is taken 77 and licence by the construction company limited from CMC Mahadevapura for construction of the building up in question can neither be termed as in Vl0l8,lLlOfll"{.)uf Section-«.l 187 of the Municipalities Act 1964 or 2003 which are made applicable to the4'Vplo--t.in cliuestionl ll sanction of the plan and issuance"otT'licence~.and.V-lzolning of Land Use under the Regulations thelVVllE3.Vl).A. in exercise of its power under of\..llS.ub;v:»._S}'ection (2) of Sections 12 and 21 g&=i the legal contentions urgecl that there is violation of statutory rights of the neighboring revsirlents and the construction which is being plot in question is both factually an"cl.legallj;A~incorrect and therefore submission made _by the learnelcl"~lS'enioifv.téounsel on behalf of the petitioner is lvrnlisvplaced as the' petitioner has failed to show that there is ..of_.fun'd:amental rights and statutory rights of the gerieral, whose cause is being sought to be expoused "in these public interest litigation initiated by him by iv . ,'sew3_ge"'ei"ﬂuent'-- means effluent from any sewerage system or ﬁling petitions to show that there is a public injury caused to the public at large. Therefore this Court has to entertai.nV_V"thatVv Writ Petition Filed by him are misconceived. . hold that there is no violation of the saiclrights iandi K '' injury. Hence there is no merit in litigation. Accordingly We have 'the point against the petitioner.

Point Nos. 4 and*5__ point Nos.

1 to 4 in w.1>.l~:a."éi:1ioc[os:i..._ I;

50. The int-er..;5elated and therefore the same ans'werec1~ togetheirv"in""favour of the construction company lirniteci"vagainstﬁith"e«':_"-petitioner by assigning the following Firsi:'«we...answer the point Nos.lto 4 in answer to the said points would be Nos.4 81 5 in the Writ petition Zig). 2(gg) and 2(k) of the Water Act deﬁnes \m/ 79 sewege disposal works and includes sullage from open drains; 'sewer' means any conduit pipe or channel, open or_"€:los:ed;A.V carrying sewage or trade efﬂuent; and 'trade efﬂueiitl: any liquid, gaseous or solid substanceM{Xfhich"ais~: from any premises used for carryinglvori-._anyprothert' it domestic sewage, respectively. the aforesaid provisions of Htviounsel Smt.Nalini Chidambaram be number of occupants in the" the building, there will be a system and carrying sewaagel trade effluent is discharged both! in the and solid substance from Which, one alofduyrelling house which amounts to termwof disposal system other than the domestic 'sevs1rage«.._V_Therefore she has placed reliance upon the Vﬁilotiﬁcatiofi--- dated' 377.2004 at Sl. No. 31 of the first schedule said Notificatiori issued by the Union of India in ""V..'v_'e§{cr¢i_se».lofdits statutory power under Section 3[i1') of the Protections Act of 1986. Therefore it is \r\./ 80 submitted that as on the date of commencement of"'-the construction of the building by the Construction " plot in question the Consent for Effluent Certiﬁcate: vviaslvlnnot'-it obtained by it from the Board as requiredwunder.Section. the Act. Hence construction», of building is contravention of Section 25 of the Therefore illegal and further placed reliance of the Building Bye Laws as the C properly on account of which tl;_1'erA€%j;jg.o:?.aVillilbei will not be discharged from of which there will be water building licence and sanctioned plan' of City Municipality of Mailadevapuia for of the building is illegal. Theljlbsaid. is strongly rebutted by learned Senior _Counsel- : Sri fBl'i'at interalia contending that vide l'i§otiiication"'««._ dated 07.07.2004 issued by the Central under sub section (ii) of Section 3 of the Protection Act 1986 is not applicable to the the Construction Co., in para 3(ii) sub para [g] \m/ which is inserted provides that "any construction project falling under entrv 31 of Schedule I includin new tovmsh«:_ industrial townshivs settlement colonies, ~ cornnlexes, hotel complexes, hospitalsand office " "eiorn'b'Iexese-V_V for 1000 persons or below of discharging;'_'_'se'wa;§e_"of liters per dav or below or with anﬁnvestment of crores or below". The said i\lotiﬁcation.ha.s no application to the building in question for number of persons will not be of sewage or trade effluent of". Therefore non-

obtaining for construction of the building' of the Water Act is not tenable in submitted by him that City a't:'gth'e«._time of sanctioning the plan and issuing licence"'in'£fa\fo'iii*'i the"'construction co., has expressly stated, lwlhich is "very" ' clear that the consent for construction C uC_ei'tiﬁ.c:atershall..be produced at the time of occupation of the fact, the Pollution Control Board no doubt ':..refused"for grant of the said Certiﬁcate vicle its order dated \m/ VA '12' 82 25.11.2006 that order was subsequently reviewed by'"--the Pollution Control Board in exercise of its power under. 25(7) vide its order dated 22.09.2007. No doubt.,__thi:s c:dé;?:s- seriously challenged by the very 4100/08 contending that order of the Chairman «Board V is in Violation of Principles of NaturaI::._Jaistice~as:the is passed without hearing him is 'notfpassed by the Board as required in so many manipulations in "h-evfjfhad sought for Clu35hiﬂg the contentions urged on behalf strongly rebutted by the Pollution Divakar by producing its original record to said contentions are factually incorre'ct. justiﬁed the order of consent passed by the Pollution Control Board as a delegate Board permissible under Section 1i-A of the , and further the same is passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore it is contended by him that the legal contentions urged on behalf \\/ of the petitioner are not tenable in law, requested this C'"ourt to reject the same. In addition to the above contention urged on behalf of the Pollution learned Senior Counsel Sri U.L.

placing strong reliance upon Section thgwlater 1974, submitted that the said Boardinaay time review any condition imposeclto section (1) of Section 25 or Section 26 of the along with Section 28 of the said' tllg is provided to an aggrieved by the Pollution Control 27. Therefore it is submitted by that ed person in relation to the order pass§_o1..py llgranting consent certiﬁcate can only be to whom refusal to grant consent for constru'ctionlofvtl:.e Building as required under the provisions Act {is refused). Therefore, it is contended that the S has no right either in his individual capacity or in ..u, public interest litigation seeking to quash the .revievv' order on the ground that the order is passed by the W Pollution Act by the Construction Company Limited. Hence he has requested this Court to reject the contentions'_»i.irged° on behalf of the petitioner.

51. With reference to the above :'said_'_' of the learned Senior Counsel anci'V__cLounsel"'for "ﬁve have carefully examined legai on of the petitioner to find out the legalfitfhh same. As could be seen from theiirecords the learned counsel for the we ﬁnd that there is an order of the Board in exercise of his:"-pAow9'er' 2,7[2)(bl of the Water Act. As per the Board to grant consent in favour of the Clornpany Limited. Such power is very much'«aVailab_1ev--,in 'Pollution Control Board in the statute Section which reads thus:

V "27{2)'{b] the refusal of any consent referred to in .st1b-section (1) of section 25 or section 26 or .._g"ra_r3t_ of; such consent without any condition, and ._Ifr1a"y make such orders as it deems fit." \/ 86 As could be seen from the record of the Board on"'--the review application filed by the Construction passed the order as it was aggrieved by the order__of to A grant of consent in its favour earlier.:v"The"C.hairn;1an"of_thepE Board as a delegatee of the Board,_.as 11A of the Act has passed resolutioiilor the construction co., He has in the review Application for granting consent passed bf " same was reconsidered and and granted the consent for the Company with certain conditioiis 'and same cannot be said it is vitiated in law _ '.'-Ofllcornpetence on the part of the in Hxlriew of Sec. 1 1A of the Act and the powers to him to be performed by it Trorn time "to »._tiinve'; on the basis of its resolution. The to this effect is Very much available in the record of P:oll'u':ion'AControl Board. The correctness of the resolution .l,i_s_ 'questioned by the petitioner in this case. Therefore \«»»/ 8'7 competence of the Chairman of the Board to review its order cannot be questioned contending that the order passed by an incompetent person. The said contepntioniof b learned Senior counsel on behalf of untenable in law. Therefore, the is'---liable to.'vbe.. and accordingly rejected. Further behalf of the petitioner that earlier order the could not have been reviewed by the of consent under Section of also wholly untenable in law careful reading of clause (b) Section 25 as the Act, abundantly Inalres it that Board has got every power to 'decisions or order from time to tin'ie,V could be seen from Section 28 of the Act ;_._upon reliance is placed by the learned Senior "(--;o1,in_sel for the'v"Construction Co.. to substantiate his that neither the petitioner nor any other person iightffof hearing in the appeal against an order passed the"'Board refusing to grant consent for construction is \/ 88 clear from the perusal of sub Section (4) of Section 28 of'-the Act, which makes it very clear that on receipt preferred under sub section (1) of Section Authority shall, after giving the opportunity of being heard, disposed'----ofw. the as expeditiously as possible. The provisions': Act makes it very clear that the Otphervpnblic had no right of appeal against consent for construction of the and review is only conferred upon a the refusal of any consent refenﬂedtttto {inter Section 25 or 26 the Board may S' such' as it deems fit by reviewing girderi'i;ronfi:Hti'ine'V'to"time. The aforesaid provision of t1i_e.ActVd'oesiriotfhtprovide for either giving a personal hearing _or a pubiic othearingifeitlier to the petitioner or public in Vgenerai. Not v--._vv'ithstanding the aforesaid Iega} contention behalfﬁof the Construction C0,, as could be seen .. produced by the Board it is seen that was given by the Chairman of the Board to the \\+/ 89 petitioner as a matter of fact before passing an order in-tghe Review Petition reviewing his earlier decision in reﬁ__14'si.ngjto" grant for construction of the building in favouif of Construction Company Limited. The_sreforei;f1e urged by the learned Senior counsel'--.A.on behalf V petitioner cannot be accepted as the factual position as €VidenCe(i:::4'l"l7Qm_'flt1;lC: Pollution Control Board. Hence we in this regard by the petit~io'iie.i*'s hold that passing an order undjer' Section 27(2)[b) of the Water Accordingly Point No.1 to 4 in WP. No';_4100/SSS-ifs"-eiiswered in favour of the Construction. _Company' is rightly granted by the Chairn'ian this "PollutioVn'HContr0l Board by reviewing its earl1e19'orde.r.' 4ftiie.1.date of sanctioning the plan or before issuing licence or before commencement of the construction __b-uilding the plot in question by the Construction by the CFE was not obtained by it, even then in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25 \w/ 90 and 27{2][b] of the Water Act and the construction is tinder progress. There is consent for construction of issued by the Chairman of the Board. For the supra, the commencement of the lconst:_mctioIi.VV..__ahVd construction of the building upon the plot question' cannot be termed as illegai as contended petitiorier' PIL petition. Point No. 4 in reoaired to answered in favour of the Limited.

Accordingly. we anstjiierﬁie Answer Vt_o_vI'_cii:.ti't it

52. Further, oi" the building upon the plot in questionby the Clonstrtictioln Co., is not in violation of Zo1.i'ai"vReg'a.latiAon and 'll-fitiilllitliling Bye«~Laws applicable to the propelrty'V'it:f1ll the reason that under the Zoning .lRe'g'ulatioi1..t__he is for residential purpose and comes residentiai zone, is not a contested fact, which is

--»from the conversion order passed by the Special Dleptitycomrnissioner under Section 95(3) of the KLR Act and \\\./ 91 the said order is not challenged either by the petitioner oi"'-any other person and further construction of the building' plot to provide apartments to the senior citizenslas sanctioned plan by the Comrnissioneifof'.'City*._MuIiicip;ality,_6 Mahadevapura and further floor area, Vécoxhlfered etc. as provided in item II (3) to and Regulations of B.D.A. is in .Regulations and further sanction of the plan .-Mvalilaldevapura as it is the local self Autl:iorijt;;}'as:3pei*:h order dated 07.03.1996. the building by the Construction of Zonal Regulations or Building Byeliaws property in question. ~'v.1?ointiNo.T£S in W§P.« 936/2006. '-is answered against the petitioner for lthwe followivingé reasoristil petitioner has not shown from either the pleadings fror_n"'the"docuInenta1'y evidence produced in this case to ~l.shlovr"that there is violation of the fundamental rights or \w/ 92 statutory rights of either the petitioner or neighboring residents of the plot in question to bring a cause purview of public interest litigation as the l._the'l Construction C0,, cause public 3 construction of the building upongthe pllotphin Construction Company Limited date of commencement of the and discharge of effluent or no either for ingress or for egress' building in available in the case the petitioner has not shouriai or public interest will be suffered on vvlaccotint Rule of law. Hence this petitions by. not in the public interest to maintairi. publ:ic..._ginterest litigation. Undisputedly the passed by the Special Deputy Cornn:.ission'er .-{ion the basis of the then existing development plan showing the plot in question C, '"i"n.tl1e_residential zone is considered by him and exercised his ..;.,_._¢:9;3tu'£§T37"power under Section 95(3) of the KLR Act and \\x/ 93 passed an order of conversion dated 01.08.2003 converting the land from agricultural purpose to non purpose with certain terms and conditions. This__o'rder:.A.lis lnnoti C challenged by any person including answering point Nos. 1 and 2 in W;P.Ai\Te.936V,/Oéji afﬁrmative in favour of the Construction 'idirriited We have already held that there of thevterins and conditions enumerated in the not getting the lay out Dlari under the provisions of ' by recording the reasons and answered the point Nos.

4 and 5 and polirxtlxlo. No. 4100/08 against the petitioner has interest litigation petitions and in favour'.of"the""Construction Co., Further, there is a consent the..,,Construction Co., for discharge of efﬂuent the Building. the Construction Company Limited from :i':oil.tiiion' Control Board invoking its right of review under .. '2"i'V(*2]{l3) of the Water Act and no doubt as on the date coinniehcement of the construction of the building there is \w/ 94 no C.F.E. Certiﬁcate obtained from the Pollution Control Board that by itself does not render the oonstruoti.on'_A»o:f Building in the plot is illegal. Further he has the Construction Co., will undertake treatment plant in the plot in question View that the discharge of sewage is properl$f"'"trea.t_ed and there shall not be any water "as in the PIL writ petitions and eaueepiaueiieftpvg either the occupants or the vicinity.

His submission Pollution Control Board must Company shall get implemented its undertaking givenlto the Court. .vp_reaso'ns~-----stated supra, we have held that constgvuetioiz is not illegal and We have already that of the building upon the plot in _ is notin violation of either the Zonal Regulations or it ' -., A V W 95

55. Point Nos. 1 and 2 in w.p.No.13904/zooafere answered against the petitioner for the following " We had been proposed to __consider submissions made where the provisic.ns1._'_'oft Water_A.ct Environment Protection Act 1986"agnd_Notiﬁcation;Aissijedtjin sub section (ii) of Section 3 of the En-aironrnent.'Protection Act adding Entry No. 31 to the" Notiﬁcation dated 07.07.2004 forthe_reasor1g:V:}th:at.V:tVt'thepetitioner in this case has already" construction to discharge efﬂue-n~t thebtﬁiilding and the same is not interfered in the Public Interest Litigation Writ petition to quash the order dated coxnse-nt'for discharge of sewage by the Chairrnanwdof Control Board in exercise of its :1'rei(Vi.ew power'ueee; gseeeon 27(2)(h) of the Water Act and the Aisgfound "byfus by recording the reasons while answering to 4 framed in the said Writ Petition No.1«-400/O8 the petitioner and in favour of the construction \\+/ 96 Company by recording our reasons after considering thefriaral legal contentions rejecting the contentions urged M the petitioner after satisfying on perusal of " have already held that the consent it efﬂuence from the building of the con's--tru--ctioneflornpariyliv cannot be quashed. Therefore We needvnot exarnirie claim of the construction Cornpanyp of Karnataka Pollution Control application ﬁled in Forrn No. 31 the basis of acknowledgements? 13.06.2006 no action was period of limitation within four montl1s"afterl.rn'al{ing---- ofxapplication under Section We "order of confirmation for construction of discharge of __eflluiéncejlgranting in favour of the construction lirnitedr '*'l'herefore point no. 1 and 2 are not be answered. Accordingly we answer the point l.u, against the petitioner/Construction Company, as 'ufe_ View that there is no need for granting the reliefs lav 97 as prayed in the writ petition No.18904/O6. Accordingly"-the petition is disposed off by answering point No.3 alsolg' same is wholly unnecessary.

Point No. 1 of Contempt Petitiolnltllll

56. The said point is required the petitioner for the following reasons?» . V 3 'V H After perusal of the andlstatement of counter and further passed by this Court on 'facts stated in the application seeking interim order in construction inllvconfirmity with the sanctioned plan the our considered view, the allegations The petitioner has failed to is willful disobedience of the interim order ._dated in the complaint to take action the"---co:.1:st1*iiction company limited for civil contempt .3the.arproifisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read thereunder. We are satisﬁed that there is nil'vV.neitheir'""disobedience nor willful disobedience of the \v