Karnataka HC says it suspects private interests in PILs on civic body election
Bengaluru, Aug 16: A single-judge Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday said there are strong hints of private interests in a bunch of public interest litigations (PILs) that came up for hearing regarding the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) elections.
The court said it cannot stop the process of elections to the BBMP, and if there were any problems in the wards delimitation, they could be rectified by the time of the next elections.
The petitioners sought an interim order that the High Court rejected.
The number of wards in the civic body has been increased from the existing 198 to 243. The government has also issued the ward reservation list on August 4.
The petitions filed by several former BBMP corporators and others came up for hearing before Justice Hemant Chandangoudar.
The judge quipped that there are hints of private interests rather than public interest in the PILs. The petitions sought for redoing the delimitation of certain wards.
The PILs had challenged the delimitation, claiming they were done unscientifically and without regard for proper boundaries.
The Election Commission (EC) on Tuesday filed objections to more than half a dozen PILs filed on the issue. The petitions were previously heard on August 10.
The EC, in its statement of objections, called for the petitions to be dismissed as they were a blatantly illegal and untenable attempt to delay the elections to the BBMP though the term of the elected councilors expired on September 10, 2020.
Any direction to re-do the delimitation exercise would be against the Supreme Court directives, it has said.
The Supreme Court had directed the EC to conduct the elections through its orders in May and July of this year in a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the State government.
The exercise of the preparation of the electoral roll for all the 243 wards of BBMP has already commenced and is continuing on a warfooting due to the tight time schedule fixed by the SEC and because of the urgency with which the elections to the BBMP has to be conducted in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, the objections state.
The State Election Commission (SEC) has also specifically objected to any interim order on the PILs.
The Supreme Court has laid down the law that if elections are imminent, though the Courts can entertain writ petitions challenging notifications, no interim order of stay ought to be given which has the effect of indefinite postponement of the elections and all controversial matters and all disputes should be postponed till after the elections are over.
The High Court adjourned the hearing of the matter to Wednesday.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
