19 Sep 2023 10:11 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed concerns about the mushrooming of illegal hoardings, flexes and banners in the city of Bengaluru and asked the Bruhat Bengaluru Nagar Palike (BBMP) about the actions taken by it against such illegal hoardings.Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, informed a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale...
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed concerns about the mushrooming of illegal hoardings, flexes and banners in the city of Bengaluru and asked the Bruhat Bengaluru Nagar Palike (BBMP) about the actions taken by it against such illegal hoardings.
Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, informed a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit that commercial hoardings can be erected only with prior permission of the corporation in terms of the BBMP Act 2020.
"For reasons best known to the corporation, it is unable to place on record details whether these commercial hoardings which are in a way of mushroom growing in this town are erected either with prior permission or with necessary payment of fees to the corporation", he said.
“This aspect requires serious consideration", the bench said. It added, “There cannot be any dispute that such mushrooming of erecting hoardings would not only cause a serious disturbance in the free traffic movement but it also results in loss of revenue.”
The bench said that the senior counsel is justified in stating that "the growth of such hoardings leads to create an impression in the mind of the general public that either authorities of corporation are casual in their duties or for reasons best known to them, they are showing utter negligence to their duties". "In both the situations ,the sufferer is none else than the public at large in general and the Citizens of Bangalore city in particular", the bench observed in the order.
The bench granted three weeks time to the civic body to respond. The counsel for the Bengaluru corporation said that some time is necessary to supply necessary details such as the steps taken by the corporation after the order dated 30-08-2023, the details as to why such steps were not taken earlier.
The bench further directed the corporation to inform about the details of the action initiated and the penalties recovered.
"The Corporation must also supply details that if higher authorities found some of the subordinate officers were either committing dereliction of duties or were slow and lethargic in performance of their duties, what action is initiated against such erring officers and what action and nature of action. If no action is initiated an explanation as to why no action is initiated", the bench added.
“We hope and trust that the corporation would take serious note of these observations and would file a proper detailed, comprehensive statement of objection/response, in this court within three weeks from today. We further make it clear that the respondent corporation will have to follow timelines to file response, in no case further adjournment would be granted to file response.”
The directions were given while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Mayige Gowda through their counsel Advocate G R Mohan.
Case Title: Mayige Gowda And State of Karnataka
Case No: W.P. NO. 57990 OF 2017