Milk Colony Sports Club vs The Commissioner and M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited

D.H. Waghela, C.J.—The petitioner has, by way of public interest litigation, raised number of grievances in respect of construction being carried out over an area of open space in Malleshwaram area, which as a playground was earlier in charge of the petitioner as Secretary of Milk Colony Sports Club. It is claimed that the petitioner used to manage the playground and it was used as a stadium for conducting different types of games and he used to give permission to conduct such games and activities. On 15.03.2006, the petitioner had issued a letter on behalf of general public, requesting the Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to develop the playground for the use of general public and to convert it as a mini stadium to conduct indoor games and other sports. According to the petition, there was stay of the Hon''ble Supreme Court operating against that development. The grievance of the petitioner is that, it has now come to his knowledge that BBMP has given a contract to conduct development work upon the same playground to respondent No. 2 and such work is already underway, but it is contrary to the plan and sketch issued by the petitioner on behalf of general public. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 12.02.2013 asking details of the construction. On that basis, it is alleged that respondent No. 2 has been trying to convert this playground for their own use and occupation. A further grievance is made to the effect that respondent No. 2 has been preventing access to the general public and even charging entry fees for the use of a gym, which has come up at the place. It is therefore alleged that respondent No. 1 has been adopting unjustifiable methods to help respondent No. 2. It is also alleged in the grounds for the petition that BBMP has not issued any tender notification, that respondent No. 2 is a private real estate company and they are constructing walking track, which is not necessary. Ultimately, it is prayed in the petition that directions may be issued to the respondents to restore the schedule-land as playground and open space with unrestricted right of use and entry for the general public. A further prayer is made in the following terms:-.

(b) Issue any order or direction to the respondents to gather information from general public regarding the manner of conducting development works in the schedule playground and construct the playground as per the interest of general public to reserve the unrestricted rights of the general public to access the same free of cost.

The above extracted gist of the petition would clearly show the extent to which the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court could be put to test in the name of general public and even in absence of any factual or legal basis. Upon learned counsel for the petitioner being asked to point out the legal provisions on the basis of which right of the general public in respect of the playground or open space was claimed and in respect of the alleged violation of any legal provisions, the only provision cited in support of all the vague and rambling arguments was Section 8 of the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985, which reads as under:-

Prohibition of construction of buildings etc.-(1) No person shall construct any building or put up any structure likely to affect the utility of the park, play-field or open space or make any encroachment in or over any park, play-field or open space specified in the list published u/s 4 or Section 5:

Provided that the executive authority may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, permit the construction of such buildings or putting up of such structures as may be necessary for the improvement or more beneficial utilization of the park, play-field or open space.

(2) No land or buildings within a park, play-field or open space specified in the list published u/s 4 or Section 5 shall be alienated by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange mortgage or otherwise and no licence for the use of any such land or buildings for any other purpose shall be granted and any alienation made or licence granted in contravention of this section shall be null and void.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was at a loss to point out either from the petition or from the record, how the above provisions were violated in what prima facie appears to be a case of development of open space into a sports facility, wherein all construction and contract is always subject to the provisions of Section 8, as aforesaid. It appears that there is no public interest involved in the petition or the grievances made by the petitioner, but the personal loss of the petitioner in losing control over that open space is the real grievance voiced in the form of or in the name of public interest. It has been a hard task, taking hours of the public time of the Court, to search out any violation of any specific provision of law, practically without any meaningful assistance from the material on record or argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is repeatedly observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction and the special remedy of PIL are casually invoked for indulging in public discourse in the name of public interest with a hidden or private agenda at substantial cost of public time of the Court and at the cost of the perpetual public interest in early disposal of the cases pending since years in the Court. Therefore, deprecating the approach and institution of the proceeding by the petitioner in no uncertain terms, the petitions are dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/- which the petitioner shall pay to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bangalore, within a fortnight.