ORDER
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It purports to consist of Members who are residents of what is known as 'Nrupathunga Nagara Extension'. Its objects, apart from promotion of cultural, sports and educational activities are planting way-side trees as well as promote the relationship between the 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society's Members and the Members of the petitioner-Society. It is in the pursuit of the last mentioned object that the Society claims the right to maintain this Writ Petition allegedly in public Interest. Something more will be said in the course of this order about such interest a little later.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition inter alia praying that the Impugned order of the 1st respondent-State Government as at Annexure-C1 be quashed and a Mandamus be issued to the respondents from altering or modifying the private lay-out plan of the 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society approved on 20-12-1982. Before stating the facts it would be necessary to state that there is no difference in the relief asked for in the two prayers because the Government Order as at Annexure-C1 if quashed the earlier plan automatically gets revived and there is no need for issuing a Mandamus restraining the respondents from altering it.
3. The 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society is duly registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Apparently, it formed a private layout in S.Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 24 of Nagarabhavi village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the same was sanctioned by the work order issued bearing No. BDA/TMP/419/84-85 dated 31-7-1984. That lay-out was executed pursuant to that order as evidenced by Annexure-A to the petition, the original lay-out plan. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society's Secretary appears to have requested for the modification of the lay-out which was considered by the Government and by an order dated 8-5-1987/3-7-1987, the modification was sanctioned subject to the conditions imposed in the order which is at Annexure-C1 to the petition. It is that order which is challenged inter alia on the ground that it violates Zonal Regulations framed by the 2nd respondent in its discharge of Its function as the authority constituted under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act for the area covered falling within the metropolitan area of Bangalore City. A specific Regulation, it is contended has been violated. Regulation-5 which lays down certain standards in regard to formation of sites, roads, provision for civic amenities parks and play-grounds which is contemplated in Section 16 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the B.D.A. Act). While the B.D.A. Act has provided guidance to the Bangalore Development Authority to formulate the scheme keeping in mind the provisions of Section 16 of the B.D.A. Act, the Zonal Regulations have wider application to all lay-outs created either by the Bangalore Development Authority or other persons than the Bangalore Development Authority.
4. In the course of the arguments addressed, parties do not dispute that the Zonal Regulations which were in force at the time the sanction was accorded for the formation of the private layout either on 31-7-1984 or earlier the ratio of sital area that could be provided was in the ratio of 55 to 60 per cent for sites and the remainder for roads, open spaces and other civic amenities.
5. The petitioner-Society contends now in this Court that order of the 1st respondent-State Government permitting the modification as at Annexure-C1 is in violation of the Zonal Regulations which are now currently in force which prescribes and provides for a maximum sital area of 50 per cent without any scope for relaxing that proportion to the total area of the layout. The petitioner-Society has produced Annexure-G to the petition on which it relies. That provides the area occupied by the sites, the roads and the civic amenities in the following proportion. Sites 57 per cent of the total area comprised in the earlier mentioned survey numbers of Nagarabhavi village, 25 per cent for roads and 18 per cent for civic amenities. Number of sites provided in the original plan as at Annexure-A is 628 occupying 1,28,000 square yards. Under the modified plan the approval of which as at Annexure-G is challenged in this Writ Petition, the site area is reduced to 50 per cent of the total area occupied by roads and drainage is increased to 30 per cent (29.90) and civic amenities are allowed to remain at 15 per cent.
6. Therefore, the question which falls for determination foremost in the light of the contentions advanced by Mr. B. Veerabhadrappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Is:
Whether the new Zonal Regulations are attracted at all to the sanction accorded to the modified plan by the 1st respondent and if it is attracted whether there is any violation of the same?
It is now well settled principle that all Rules, Laws and Regulations are prospective in their operation unless it is made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication in the new Laws, Regulations or Rules. If the old Regulations in force provided sixty per cent maximum area for sites, 15 per cent for civic amenities and open space and the rest for roads and drainage then the modified plan does not offend the old Regulations. What has really happened is change in the proportion of the areas occupied by the sites, the roads and the civic amenities but within the permissible allocations under the old Regulations. It is seen by a comparison of the figures furnished that 2 per cent reduction is provided in the area occupied by the sites while there is an increase of nearly 5 per cent of the area occupied by roads and there is a reduction of 3 per cent of the area reserved for civic amenities and open space. But, nevertheless, the number of sites have increased from 628 to 674 which in the absence of any additional area added to the original lay-out area must lead to the inevitable conclusion that the increase is due to the reduction of the sizes of the sites and thereby the increase in number though the area occupied is reduced by 2 per cent of the total area. In other words, the 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society by seeking the modification has sacrificed the larger dimension of the sites in favour of enlarging the area of the roads and reducing the area of the civic amenities and the total area of the sites. This is the inescapable conclusion one has to reach on the admitted facts.
7. Therefore, if the old Regulation was replaced by the new Regulations which came into force on 12-10-1984 then the whole of the sanction accorded to the original lay-out should be considered unlawful. But that cannot be the case because the work order for the earlier lay-out plan as at Annexure-A was issued before the new Regulations came into force. Therefore, the State Government-1st respondent, the Bangalore Development Authority-2nd respondent have proceeded to treat the request for modification as a request falling within the scope of the old Regulations and I feel that in the absence of any specific provision which made the new Regulations applicable to plans sanctioned earlier, the approach and understanding of the Government and the Bangalore Development Authority was correct and the modification was permitted under the old Regulations and not under the new Regulations which are not attracted because nothing in the new Regulations indicate that it is retrospective in its operation. In the very nature of things it cannot be retrospective. It will be impossible to conform to the new Regulations, that is to bring into conformity with the new Regulations the lay-outs, the roads, the buildings etc., though they have been so built or laid out long before the new Regulations are brought into force.
8. Therefore, I would have no hesitation to hold that there is no violation of the new Regulation as complained by the petitioner-Society because they are not applicable to the facts of the case of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, Annexure-C1 which does not violate the old Regulations under which it was sanctioned originally must be held to be valid and not liable to be struck down as prayed for by the petitioner.
9. Before parting with this case the point raised by the 3rd respondent in its statement of objections regarding the locus standi of the petitioner's society requires to be dealt with. This Court has never declined to entertain public Interest litigation and question of locus standi has been always treated very liberally. The 3rd respondent has specifically drawn the attention of the Court that many of the Members of the petitioner-Society are Members of the 3rd respondent-Housing Co-operative Society and are proposed allottees of the sites formed both under the original plan as at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition as well as the modified plan. As such, it is contended for the 3rd respondent that it will not be open for those Members to band themselves under one banner, viz., the petitioner-Society with the sole object of maintaining relations of the Members of the petitioner-Society with that of the 3rd respondent-Society which is not one of the purposes for which a Society may be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, in other words, the thrust of the argument is that the petitioner is only a front to some frustrated busy bodies who are its Members to raise questions which really affect their relationship vis-a-vis the 3rd respondent and its Committee of Management. To put it simply, they are ventilating their private grievance in the guise of upholding the Zonal Regulations and as such they should be denied the locus standi.
10. Mr. B. Veerabhadrappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society, has not chosen to deny that some of the Members of the Writ Petitioner-Society are Indeed allottees or prospective allottees of the sites formed in the lay-out before and after modification. If that is the truth then the purpose of the Writ Petition is to over-come the obstacle placed in the way of such Members by the Act. All Members who have any objection to the change in the lay-out as modified would necessarily have to raise dispute inter se the Members as well as the Committee of Management of the Housing Co-operative Society in accordance with the provisions made under Section 70 of the Act. In other words, the petitioner cannot indirectly do something which he cannot directly do. Even on that ground the petitioner must be denied the relief he has asked for.
11. For the reasons given above, I do not think it is necessary to deal at length with the pleadings on both sides as well as interpret Regulation-5 of the new Regulations which really does not fall for consideration.
12. The petition is misconceived and it is rejected.