The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday stayed the proceedings initiated by the Lokayukta on the plea of M/s Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd. (BDPL) to stop Bruhat Bengakuru Mahanagara Palike’s action to demolishing encroachments on storm-water drains (SWDs) in Bagmane Tech Park at Mahadevapura.
“The prayer made in BDPL’s complaint of which cognisance was taken by the Lokayukta prima facie appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the power of the Lokayukta under the section 8 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984,” the court said.
A Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty passed the interim order on a PIL petition filed by Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya. The petitioner questioned the legality of an order passed by the Lokayukta on September 12 interfering with BBMP’s action to remove SWD encroachments at Bagmane Tech Park, Mahadevapura.
On a Sunday
“On a Sunday, somebody goes to Lokayukta and stay is granted? What is this? The High Court is hearing a PIL on SWDs. This court has issued directions to the government, had taken them to task...,” the Bench orally observed when an advocate representing the Lokayukta voluntarily tried to clarify the action of the Lokayukta.
The advocate, who was among the panel of advocates for Lokayukta institution and was present in the court hall, voluntarily accepted notice and tried to clarify the issue before the Lokayukta when the Bench was dictating the interim order after the preliminary arguments of senior advocate Basavaraj S., representing the petitioner.
“Do you want to argue the matter without even reading the petition? If you want to argue that in respect of a matter which is sub-judice before this court you [Lokayukta] can....,” the court asked Lokayukta’s advocate.
‘Assumption of jurisdiction’
“Look at the plea in the complaint before the Lokayukta. The builder seeks an order of stay against demolition. Whether it falls within the preview of Lokayukta,” the Bench told him, while making it clear that “this is an assumption of jurisdiction, which we will not permit.”
The further told the advocate orally that “No need for the people to seek injunction or file no case before any court... You should give wide publicity that the office of the Lokayukta can grant stay of demolition.... Very interesting that Lokayukta gets jurisdiction to grant an order of injunction when BBMP demolishes structures properties...”
When the advocate said that there was ‘misinformation’ on Lokayukta’s action in BDPL’s case, the Bench made it clear that there was no misinformation while pointing out that it had passed an order in the PIL that no parallel authority should pass any order after it was stated that Lokayukta had stayed demolition in BDPL’s case.
The Bench also told the advocate his conduct compelled it to make these oral observations while telling him not to provoke the court to make more remarks.
