Observing that BBMP officials are turning a blind eye to violation of building laws to reap benefits, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the Palike to submit details of the number of petitions pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT).
It also sought to know the time taken to dispose off the petitions seeking stay on demolition of buildings.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice DH Waghela issued this direction while hearing a PIL filed by the Malleswaram Residents’ Welfare Association against zonal rules violation committed by a Veda Patashala. The petition claimed that Ubhaya Vedantha Pravarthana Sabha, located on 10th Cross, Malleswaram, violated building rules and constructed a multi-storey building, housing a marriage hall, in a residential area. The PIL said this was resulting in traffic jam and noise pollution, causing inconvenience to the residents there.
Officers colluding with builders: HC
The bench, also comprising Justice BV Nagarathna, observed that Palike officials were hand-in-glove with private parties for their own benefits. They are not interested in carrying out their duties but are making pacts with aggrieved parties (whose building have been ordered to be demolished) to keep the case pending, the court added.
The court wanted to know why the Palike delays demolishing a building after issuing notice ‘in accordance with law’ to do so. The Palike counsel replied saying it was because of the legal tangles involved in executing such orders.
The court directed the Palike commissioner to be present for the next hearing.
When the bench asked the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board why it was not taking any action on the issue, the counsel said it was the duty of the city police to control noise levels from loud speakers.
The court then directed the BBMP counsel to submit details of the petitions filed before the KAT seeking stay on notice for building demolition.
The BBMP counsel said that there are more than 15,000 cases pending before KAT for orders. Chief Justice Waghela then said the KAT has to dispose of such cases at the earliest.
The case has been adjourned to February 14.
HC poser
The court wanted to know why the Palike delays demolishing a building after issuing notice ‘in accordance with law’ to do so. The Palike counsel replied saying it was because of the legal tangles involved in executing such orders.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}