M. Usha vs The Commissioner

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

An examination of the case of the petitioner reveals that she is an allottee of shop premises belonging to the respondent/Bruhat...Bangalore Mahanagara Palike at the Krishnarajendra Market, Bangalore. Having carried on business in the said premises, she sought for an alternate accommodation in an open space between two shops, which when not considered approached one B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan, MLA, Chamarajpet and another S. Suresh Kumar, the then Minister for Urban Development, who addressed letters dated 17.2.2011 Annexure-D and 10.2.2011 Annexure-D1 respectively, to the Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, to allot the vacant area in the Krishnarajendra Market and to receive the monthly rentals, deposits etc.

Since the Commissioner/Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike failed to take action as directed in the two letters of the MLAs, coupled with the allegation that other similarly circumstanced allottees had been extended the benefits of alternate accommodation, has resulted in this petition for a writ of mandamus.

There car. be no dispute that section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short Act'', though governs the disposal of movable and immovable properties belonging to Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, nevertheless does not envisage disposal of properties based upon letters and directions issued by the Members of Legislative Assembly or the Minister for Urban Development.

If the Commissioner had acted upon the said representations, the entire transaction would stand vitiated since initiated and influenced by the sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly and also the then Minister for Urban Development. If the direction was implemented, then it would virtually defeat the job and purpose of several Standing Committees and Civic Body like Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, passing a resolution independently on its own on proposal moved by one Member and supported by another Member and matter would have got further eroded because the State Government would have had to virtually abdicate its statutory role envisaged in Section 176[6] of the "Act", which in fact, is a safeguard of the interest of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in the matter of transfer of immovable properties of Civic Bodies.

The issue of writ of mandamus would therefore tantamount to two types of statutory violations, the first being that the State Government is required to act as a protector and guardian of Civic Bodies by exercising vigil and proper control over the proposal of transfer of land by Civic Bodies to others and would have had to abdicate its statutory role under section 176 of the "Act". Secondly, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, a Civic Body which has to take proper care, control and conserve its properties for public good and for the benefit of the citizens would have to surrender its responsibilities to the dictates of the Citizens and the Members of Legislative Assembly.

In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for. The letters issued by the two Members of the Legislative Assembly directing the respondent/Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to allot alternate site to the petitioner, in the least is reprehensible while bordering around public accountability. The Member of Legislative Assembly and the then Minister for Urban Development, being persons holding high public offices, should scrupulously follow the rule of law as their moral obligation. When there is a conflict between office they hold and the acts to be done by them, they should desist from such acts as held by the Supreme Court in R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha and Others, .

In the result, petition is dismissed.