The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment
dated 05.09.2011 in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 and Writ
Petition No. 5173 of 2006 on the file of High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court took the view that
Civic Amenity Site No. 2 has to be utilised only for the
purpose for which it was earmarked, viz., for a Bank and,
hence, the allotment of the same by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA') to be used as a
petrol retail outlet was set aside being in violation of
Section 38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The respondents in the
writ petitions, aggrieved, pursued the matter before this
Court.
The appeals were initially dismissed by judgment in
'Purushottam v. State of Karnataka' dated 29.11.2013 reported
in 2014(3)SCC 721. Having noticed that there were factual
mistakes in the judgment of the High Court which was upheld
by this Court, by a detailed order dated 10.09.2015, the
review petitions were allowed and the judgment referred to
above was recalled.
For the purpose of ready reference we shall reproduce
the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2015 as such: -
Delay in filing Review Petition No. 532 of
2014 is condoned.
These review petitions are preferred seeking
review of our judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.
10748 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 10749 and Civil
Appeal No. 10750 of 2013.
The aforesaid appeals were filed impugning
the judgment of Karnataka High Court rendered in
Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition
No. 5173 of 2006. Those writ petitions were filed
by way of Public Interest Litigation under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
allotment of civic amenity site No. 2 to Bharat
Petroleum Corporation for establishment of a petrol
pump and seeking a declaration that the said
allotment be declared null and void.
During the course of hearing, on the basis of
a document, it was noticed that though this site was initially earmarked for a 'Park', thereafter,
the user was changed to that for a 'Bank'. On the
aforesaid premise that the site was earmarked for a
'Bank', the Court proceeded to decide as to whether
it could be allotted for a petrol pump and answered
the said question in the negative. On that basis,
writ petitions were allowed and the allotment made
in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
was set aside.
We may notice here that, in the meantime,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had allotted
this site to Smt. Ramadevi for establishment of
petrol pump. Smt. Ramadevi and her husband Shri
Purushottam were, accordingly, also arrayed as
respondents in those writ petitions. Two Appeals
were filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
and appeals were also filed by Smt. Ramadevi and
Shri Purushottam.
These appeals, as mentioned above, were
decided by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013
(which is under review) accepting the reasons given
by the High Court resulting into the dismissal of
the said appeals. In these three review petitions,
which are again preferred by Bharat Petroleum
Corporation, Smt. Ramadevi and Shri Purushottam, it
is sought to be argued that the High Court was
misled and the site in question was not earmarked
for 'Bank' at all. Certain documents are produced
in support of this submission that the site was, in
fact, earmarked for civic amenities and it is
sought to be shown that civil amenities include
petrol pump. The documents which are produced have
been obtained from the Bangalore Development
Authority under the Right to Information Act.
Since these are official documents, their
genuineness, prima facie, cannot be doubted.
Further, it would be in the interest of justice
that implication/effect of these documents is
considered. For these reasons, the judgment dated
29.11.2013 requires to be recalled and the matter
needs to be examined afresh in the light of these
documents. These review petitions are,
accordingly, allowed recalling the judgment dated
29.11.2013 and the appeals are restored to their
original numbers, viz., Civil Appeal No. 10747 of
2013, Civil Appeal Nos. 10749-10750 of 2013 and
Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2013.
We may mention that we had started hearing,
with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the appeals afresh on merits as well. JUDGMENT However, after some arguments, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 requests for
some time in order to verify these documents.
At request, liberty is granted to Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited to file additional
affidavit within two weeks.
Reply thereto, shall be filed by Respondent
Nos. 4 to 14 within two weeks thereafter.
The civil appeals shall be listed after four
weeks.
Interim orders to continue, in the meantime.”
Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, apparently having gone through
the documents, submits that the appellants have already
submitted documents referred to in the Review Petitions
before the High Court and have sought for a review before the
High Court itself and, hence, the matter be remanded to the
High Court.
Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing
for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and learned senior
counsel appearing for other appellants submit that since the
errors are apparent on the face of the record and which have
been noted from the records already available before this
Court itself at the time of hearing of the review petition,
the matter needs to be given a quietus before this Court
particularly in view of the judgment rendered by this Court.
Be that as it may, grievance essentially pertains to
the dispute as
amenity in a Modified to whetherLayoutthe sitePlan No.of Scheme2 earmarkedbetweenfor Hennurcivic
Road and Bana Swadi Road, Bangalore, is for a Bank or any
other civic amenity.
The Modified Layout Plan was available before the High
Court as produced by the BDA along with their statement and
marked as Annexure R2. In any case, the learned counsel for
BDA submits that the Layout Plan produced as Annexure R4 with
a covering letter dated 21.12.2013 in the Review Petition is
the authenticated copy of the Plan and it is not disputed
also.
Our attention has been invited to the Layout Plan and
it is seen that in Plot No. 19 [CA2] there is no earmarked
purpose whereas it is plot No. 20 that is earmarked to be
used as Bank and plot No. 21 for P&T. Therefore, the whole
basis of the contention of the writ petitioners before the
High Court is totally shaken and the same is wholly
misconceived on facts. The petrol outlet is in Plot No. 19.
Once it is seen that against the disputed plot No. 19,
no purpose as such is shown, the BDA is well within
jurisdiction to allot it for any civic amenity. There is no
dispute that petrol pump is a civic amenity coming under the
definition of civic amenity in Section 2(bb)(vi) of the Act
read with the Notification dated 29.08.1990. Under Section
38A of the Act, the only restriction cast upon the Authority
is that it shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for public parks and playgrounds and civic
amenities, for any other purpose and if so made, such
disposition would be null and void.
Once it is seen from the Notification dated 29.08.1990
that petrol pump is a civic amenity duly notified in terms of
Section 2(bb) of the Act, nothing prevents the Authority from
allotting it for being used as a notified civic amenity.
Therefore, it has become unnecessary to consider any other
point.
In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the
writ petitions filed before the High Court. They are,
accordingly, dismissed. The civil appeals are allowed as
above.
No costs.
New Delhi; December 02, 2015.