Sri C.J. Singh Son of Late Atam Singh Kochar Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Town Planning and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- code of civil procedure, 1908. section 9: [mohan shantanagouder, j] jurisdiction of civil court - suit challenging the legalitry of domestic enquiry and penalty imposed - held, civil court has got jurisdiction to find out regularity of proceedings of enquiry and question as to whether there is violation of principles of natural justice. it is also open to the civil court to go into the question as to jurisdiction of inquiring authority and disciplinary authority either to hold disciplinary proceedings or to impose penalty. however, it cannot appreciate evidence adduced before the inquiring authority. it can go into a question whether the penalty impose is proportionate to the misconduct proved......only conferred upon a person, in whose favour the refusal of any consent referred to in sub-section (1) of section 25 or 26 the board may pass such order/orders as it deems fit by reviewing its order from time to time. the aforesaid provision of the act does not provide for either giving a personal hearing or a public hearing either to the petitioner or public in general. not withstanding the aforesaid legal contention urged on behalf of the construction co., as could be seen from the record produced by the board it is seen that opportunity was given by the chairman of the board to the petitioner as a matter of fact before passing an order in the review petition reviewing his earlier decision in refusing to grant for construction of the building in favour of the construction company limited. therefore the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the factual position as evidenced from the record of the pollution control board. hence we reject the contentions urged in this regard by the petitioner's senior counsel and hold that passing an order in review petition under section 27(2)(b) of the water.....

Judgment:

ORDER

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, all these matters were listed and heard together and matters are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No. 936/2006 is filed by one Sri C.J. Singh seeking for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 & 2 viz., State of Karnataka and Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter called as KT & CP Act in short) and make such inspection and pass orders taking into consideration the concept of planning in respect of the intended construction activity being put up by respondent No. 7, (hereinafter called as a Pvt. Ltd., Company) in Sy. No. 19/2, 147/4 and 148/2 of Pattandur Agrahara, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore and further direct the respondent No. 4, Deputy Commissioner, to take action against 7th respondent-a Pvt. Ltd. Company for having violated by it, the conditions imposed in the conversion order, quash the building plan and licence, prohibit the Construction Company-7th respondent from putting up illegal construction upon the property in question and grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances.

3. W.P. No. 18904/2006 is filed by M/s. Paranjape Schemes, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Construction Company') seeking for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the Board in Criminal Complaint Nos. 849/2006, 80/2007 and further direct the first respondent to declare that a deemed consent for establishment (CFE for short) as per Section 25(7) of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Water Act') arid to declare that the CFE as per Section 25 of the Water Act is required to be obtained by the Construction Company only at the stage of issue of occupancy certificate.

4. W.P. No. 4100/2008 is tiled by the very same petitioner who has filed W.P. No. 936/2006, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20/2/2008 in Appeal No. 18/2007 on the file of the Karnataka State Appellate Authority at Bangalore under Water and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 1981, consequently set aside the order of grant of CFE dated 12/10/2007 issued by the first respondent as null and void and to direct the first respondent - The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to reconsider the grant of CFE by affording an opportunity to the parties herein and to pass such other order.

5. The contempt petition is filed by the very same petitioner in W.P. No. 936/2006 and 4200/2008 alleging violation of the interim order passed in W.P. No. 4100/2006 by the Construction Company and therefore requested to punish the contemnor by initiating contempt proceedings against it.

6. The necessary brief facts are stated in this Judgment with a view to consider the rival legal contentions urged by the learned senior Counsel for the parties, Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Urban Development and learned Counsel for BBMP and Pollution Control Board.

WP No. 936/2006

7. The petitioner is a Merchant Navy Officer has filed this petition on the ground that the State should ensure that the KT & CP Act has to be regulated by the 2nd respondent B.D.A. it has got jurisdiction of Pattandur village and the said area is included as Metropolitan Area in the notification dated 13/3/1984 in the Karnataka Gazette. It is stated that petitioner's father took possession of the land measuring 10.04 acres in Sy.No. 147/2, 148/1, 66/1 and 65/1 of Pattandur Agrahara village as per the sale deed dated 20/4/1990 and the land got disintegrated arid changed hands for convenience purpose and a cart road came into existence.

8. The petitioner farther submitted that the respondent Construction Company has got a site plan and construction plan approved from the Commissioner of erstwhile Mahadevapura City Municipal Council who is not the competent authority under the KT & CP Act. The said plan is in total contravention to the terms and conditions imposed in the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Urban Department in the plot upon which the building is being constructed by the Construction Company. The advertisement given by the Construction Company in the Times of India dated 9/1/2006, which indicates provisions for Doctor on Call and Telemedicine. own Ambulance, shuttle bus services, diet-specific canteen, convenience store, business center, Internet and video conferencing, putting green, swimming pool, Health center and club house besides library. The same did not find a place in the site plan and the elevation plan as in the documents produced as Annexures-D & D1. It is the case of the petitioner that the annexures are only indicative of the Construction Company having a commercial interest and it cannot be construed as a residence for senior citizens. It is his further case that small width of 6th cross, which is about 20 feet road and its status as a public road is doubtful as its condition being a mud road. Therefore, the Construction Company has played fraud on the public by means of the said news paper advertisement inviting applications from the public for purchase of the plots. It is the further case of the petitioner that if, public were to invest in the proposed group housing project, planned in the plot in questions, they would be unaware of the ground realities and are liable to be cheated. The future expansion of the project as envisaged in the sanctioned plan will create more congestion and the advertisement given in the newspaper by it is misleading and contrary to the actual and factual position shown in the sanctioned plan obtained from the erstwhile Mahadevapura CMC.

9. The said Construction Company got converted the land in all comprising 4 acres 30 guntas from the Special Deputy Commissioner of Urban Department with a condition that 2 acres 33 guntas of land shall be put to use for residence and 1 acre 37 guntas for public and semi public purpose. The conditions enumerated in conversion order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 1/8/2003 is violated by the Construction Company. The third respondent erstwhile City Municipal Council did not visit the spot and did not enquire about what would be the facilities needed in the building were to be complied with and ground realities relating to other civic amenities being present, the absence of the road which is the only way through which one can have ingress and egress to the Main Road. The Town Planning Officer or the commissioner of MCMC never visited the area before sanctioning the plan in favour of the Construction Company. The illegal constructions were made by the Construction Company on the Western side of the property. Mahadevapura City Municipal council while sanctioning the plan for construction of the building has flouted the building bye-laws and zonal regulations and therefore the same is liable to the quashed.

10. The further case of the petitioner is that the Construction Company has contemplated to put up residential building by misleading as if it would be a luxury old age home and it does not envisage a luxury flat construction. There is a car parking plan for 130 cars which under no circumstances can be a provision for senior citizen old age residences as advertised in the Newspaper. The property which is shown as a boundary on the western side is a strip of land belonging to the petitioner's father, which was left as a cart road/mud road for personal convenience and the property is a private land. The same does not find a place in the village map or is it a kharab land belonging to Government. The said mud road is a very narrow and the condition of the road is such that it cannot withstand a movement of two light motor vehicles to move in opposite direction and no heavy motor vehicle can pass easily through the road, to substantiate the same, some photographs are produced by the petitioner.

11. The petitioner after coming to know about the intended plan of the respondent Construction Company, who had given wide publicity in the newspaper about its philanthropic activity of putting up residence for senior citizens, he had reasons to bona fide suspect that its intention is camouflage with commercial activity is such that the petitioner has addressed letter to the Governor of Karnataka appraising him about the activity of the Construction Company. Further it is stated by him that petitioner has reason to infer as the Governor of Karnataka was not appraised about the absence of civic facilities to be provided, but was misled to the public in general that 7th respondent-Construction Company is rendering service to them in a social cause.

12. It is further stated that the Construction Company has carried on with illegal construction of the building on the converted land on account of the illegal sanctioned plan by the erstwhile CMC, which area is now included in the BBMP, which had no authority under the KT & CP Act, for sanctioning the same in favour of the Construction Company and further it has not obtained any commencement certificate torn it for construction of the building. The conversion order in relation to the plot in question is passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for non agricultural purpose and to make use of the same as per the rules and Regulations governing the KT & CP Act. The construction of the building by the Construction Company is allowed in the absence of proper public road, which is the only one way and not a thorough fare. The future occupants of the building will be put to great hardship as they will not have any ingress and egress to the Main road as the existing cart road/mud road is not a road either by prescription or by any necessity as on today. The further case of the petitioner is that taking into consideration the building which is being constructed for residential purpose after 10 years the area would be inhabitable area as there are no civic amenities in and around the building and it would result in a growth of population of more than 5000. as of now the number of residential units that are likely to occupy in all probability there will be explosion of population more than 15.000 to whom there would be no safety from fire, availing medical care and no motor vehicles can have ingress and egress to the building easily as there is no public road. Therefore, the present petition is filed seeking for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents 1 & 2 directing them to exercise their jurisdiction and power conferred upon them under the KT & CP Act to make inspection etc., as already mentioned in the earlier paragraphs.

13. As a ground of attack the petitioner has stated that KT & CP Act empowers the Bangalore Development Authority to plan the housing and township in a city, town and a village by ensuring that the basic requirement of civic amenities are made available by the Construction Company as per the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of the Construction Company in respect of the land. The erstwhile Mahadevapura CMC should have ensured that at the time of grant of sanction plan and licence in favour of the Construction Company in conformity with the conditions incorporated in the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The further ground is that the sanction of the plan and licence in favour of the Construction Company is without jurisdiction and power of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council of Mahadevapura and the same amounts to violation of conditions incorporated in the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner as the Construction Company is required to make layout plan and was required to get approval of the same from the B.D.A., which is the Condition No. l in the conversion order. Further, it is stated that not submitting the draft layout plan and obtaining approval from the B.D.A by the Construction Company as required under Section 32 of the B.D.A Act of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act' for short) has rendered the building illegal. Therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner is required to exercise his power under the provisions of KLR Act to cancel the conversion order but on the other hand he has failed to take action against the Construction Company by conducting inspection to find out the existing factual position of the plot and Area as to whether there is contravention of the condition No. 1 in the conversion order imposed upon the Construction Company by it as he has been allowed to construct the structure by giving wide publicity in the Times of India news paper. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has urged that a writ of mandamus is required to be issued by this Court both to the Special Deputy Commissioner and the B.D.A as prayed in the writ petition.

14. Another ground of attack of the impugned sanctioned plan and the licence issued by the erstwhile Commissioner of CMC of Mahadevpura, in favour of the Construction Company is that Commissioner has failed to look into the village map to see whether the public road exists for ingress and egress to the building, which is being constructed upon the property in question. Further the Commissioner, CMC of Mahadevapura has failed to take into consideration the fact that the approach road to the said building is only 20 feet wide road and without any storm water drains as the said road is only for private use not for public use. The further ground of attack is that the plan and licence issued in favour of the Construction Company in respect of the land in question is regulated by the Zonal Regulations framed by the BDA. It is the duty of the said authority for Urban Development in terms of KT & CP Act, unlike agricultural land which is being regulated by the Revenue Authorities. The construction of the building by the Construction Company is an Urban Development upon the land in question which is within the Metropolitan Area of the B.D.A. Therefore, the roads, sanitation, sewerage has to be regulated by obtaining necessary approval from by the B.D.A. Therefore, the Construction Company and the C.M.C. were required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions enumerated in the conversion order for sanction of the building plan and licence in favour of the Construction Company is by the B.D.A and not by the Commissioner of C.M.C. In support of this contention, the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the Gazette notification dated 6/4/1984 and the Government Official Memorandum dated 1/8/2003, wherein it discloses that sanction of plan and issuance of licence for construction of the building upon the converted land power vests with the B.D.A. but not with the erstwhile Commissioner, CMC Mahadevapura.

15. The next ground of attack of the impugned action of the Construction Company is that the plan is illegally obtained by it from the Commissioner. CMC with a note that the environment clearance has to be obtained from Karnataka Pollution Control Board must be at the time of obtaining occupancy certificate and the conditions imposed by the Board must be strictly adhered to by it. In law before the sanction of the plan itself for construction of the building, obtaining the environment clearance certificate from the Board is a must. The Board and the plan sanctioning authority must take all relevant aspects into consideration that there is congenial atmosphere for the occupants to live in the ten mental portions of the building that would be constructed after examining the feasibility and satisfying by itself that there are basic civic amenities available to permit the Construction Company to construct the building, the plan and license can be issued. The procedure followed by the Commissioner of CMC as per the sanctioned plan facilitating the Construction Company to produce CFE, at the time of obtaining occupancy certificate is an illegal procedure. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of the aforesaid reliefs in the public interest.

W.P. No. 4100/2008

16. This petition is filed by the petitioner in the nature of public interest litigation since he has already filed Writ Petition No. 936/06 seeking certain reliefs, which are extracted in this judgment while narrating and referring to the reliefs sought for by this petitioner in the said Writ Petition. In the said Writ petition, the Karnataka State Foliation Control Board (hereinafter referred as 'the Board' in short) is made as first respondent. It is stated that the Construction Company after obtaining sanctioned plan from the Commissioner of erstwhile C.M.C. Mahadevapura, for construction of building upon the converted land bearing Sy. No. 19/2, 147/4 and 148/2 in the name of M/s Niketan Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and started putting up construction without obtaining CF.E., as required under the provisions of the Water and Air Prevention and Control Acts referred to supra. Therefore, it is stated that there is a statutory violation on the part of the Construction Company and the application filed for grant of C.F.E. before the Board was rejected by order dated 25.11.2006. The Construction Company preferred an appeal against that order as provided under the Water Act in appeal No. 10/06 on 20,12.2006. During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioner herein filed an application for impleading himself as a necessary and proper party in the said appeal. On rejection of the said application he had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1591/2007 before this Court. This Court entertained the said petition and granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings in appeal No. 10/08.

17. During the pendency of the said appeal the Construction Company made an application to the Board on 20.03.2007 seeking to review its earlier order of rejection of the application of the Construction Company in not granting CFE vide order dated 25.11.2006. The said application was not maintainable in law in view of the fact that the appeal filed by the Construction Company was pending before the appellate Authority and further the Construction Company filed Writ Petition No. 18904/06 before this Court on 22.12.2006 against the 1st respondent-Board seeking a relief of declaration that there is a deemed consent under the provisions of the Water Act and as the Board has not considered the application and passed order under the provisions of the Act within the statutory period stipulated under the provisions of the Act. In the said Writ Petition an application for impleading and another application Under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner herein. The Construction Company has filed an application before the appellate Authority seeking permission to withdraw the said appeal on the ground that he intends to file a review petition before the Board by suppressing the fact that he had already filed a review petition before the Board. It is stated that the petitioner made several representations to the Board by furnishing several facts concerning environment and requested it an opportunity of being heard in the matter be granted to him and the same was granted and the matter was fixed on 25.07.2007 for hearing. On that day the matter was heard for short time and the hearing was inconclusive for want of time. In that process the Chairman of the Board was away on a Foreign assignment and informed the parties in the open Court that the future date of hearing would be informed to him by Pose. Therefore the Petitioner herein was under the impression that further date of hearing will be intimated to him and wailed for communication from him. But he did not receive any communication from Board. Therefore the petitioner through his Advocate intimated to the Board seeking to know the future hearing date if hearing of the review petition by a letter dated 06.08.007 and further the first respondent without informing further date of hearing to him has proceeded to grant order for CFE vide order dated 12.10.2007 in favour of the Construction Company. It is the case of the petitioner that the Board at no point of time had fixed the date for hearing of the Review petition and it has passed an order on 12.10.2007. It is that order which was impugned in the Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Water Act. The notice was ordered in the said appeal to both the petitioner and the Construction Company. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties granted interim order of staying the grant of CFE vide order dated 20.12.2007 in the said appeal in favour o[ the petitioner.

18. It is submitted that the Clause 4 of the EIA Notification of 1994 has delegated the power in favour of its chairman as on the date the application filed by the Construction Company on 10.07.2006 before the Board seeking for grant of CFE in its favour by reviewing its earlier order dated 25.11.2006, is contrary to law and facts. Therefore he has urged that the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal by its order dated 20.02.2008 erroneously has made certain observations that further proceedings in Appeal No. 10/06 was stayed without taking note of the fact that review petition was already filed by the Construction Company during the pendency of the appeal No. 10/06 and during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 18904/06 filed by the Construction Company seeking for setting aside the rejection order and also declaration that there is a deemed grant of CFE in favour of the Construction Company. It is further stated that the grant of CFE without notifying further date of hearing of the Review petition after the case was adjourned on 25.07.2007 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order granting CFE is a nullity in the eye of law and therefore it is liable to be quashed. Further, observations made by the appellate authority that the High Court had restrained the Construction Company from carrying out the work, later vacated the stay and permitted it to continue the work after obtaining commencement certificate from the City Municipality Council, Mahadevapura. The Appellate Authority was made available the copy of modified order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 936/06 without noticing the fact that interim order dated 21.04.2006 modifying its earlier interim order stating that the Construction Company should not violate any statutory laws. The said observations are unnoticed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

19. The appellate Authority has further made an observation in the impugned order stating that initially, the Constriction Company-respondent is a 'proprietorship concern' and later it became 'partnership firm' which observation is factually incorrect. The actual fact is that the Construction Company had claimed in the application dated 10.07.2006 that it is a partnership firm.

20. Further, it is stated that on totally irrelevant facts, reasons and observations made by the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal affirming the grant of CFE in favour of the Construction Company by the Board in exercise of its review power under Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Water Act is legal and valid in law.

21. It is further stated that the Board as a matter of fact has passed CFE order dated 12.10.2007 and the alleged judgment dated 22.09.2007 (Annexure N) does not find a place in. reference No. 1 to 8 in the Head note of the order dated 12.10.2007, which raises serious suspicion as on to why said documents did not find a place if they existed at all as on the date of order passed by the Board on 12.10.2007. Even if, there was an order sheet of the case examined by the Appellate Authority would have reflected the same in the narration of facts. The truth of the matter is that there is no reference in the order-sheet, which leads to the presumption that serious mal administration indulged by the Board in concocting the said documents. Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate and consider this important aspect of the matter, at the time of examining the correctness of order in granting the CFE in favour of the Construction Company, which indicates that the Appellate Authority without application of mind has passed impugned order dated 20.02.2008. On this ground alone the same is liable to be quashed. The Board has failed to response to the letter dated 06.08.2007 got sent by the petitioner through his Advocate addressed to the Board, seeking to fix the hearing date of Review Petition, is a dear case that the order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and further grant of CFE in favour of the Construction Company by the Board in exercise of the review power under Section 27(2) of the Water Act not noticed in the fact that there is a statutory violation on the part of the Construction Company in constructing the building upon the flat without there being an access road to it and approval of the !ay out plan and obtaining sanctioned plan and the licence from the Commissioner of the erstwhile C.M.C. Mahadevapura, who is not the competent Authority in law and further without obtaining CFE for construction of the building from the Board as required Under Section 25 of the Water Act, is in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. reported in : AIR 1985 SC 652. and further placed strong reliance upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SCW 306 in which the Apex Court while referring to the Stock Home Declaration of United Nations in 1972 made observation thus:

The Declaration, therefore affirms both aspects of environment, the natural and man made and the protection is essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights i.e. right to life itself.

22. It is further urged that the grant of CFE by Reviewing its earlier order dated 25.11.2006 without hearing the petitioner and not noticing the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and therefore exercise of review power by the Board is a colourable exercise of power, which cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

23. Further, it is urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Chairman of the Board who is not legally competent to pass the order granting CFE in favour of the Construction Company, by reviewing its earlier order of rejection dated 25.11.2006 and in fact the delegation of power by the Board to the Chairman is totally impermissible in law and in fact no such delegation of power is given in favour of the Chairman of the Board to pass the impugned order dated 12.10.2007. On this ground also the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law for competence of the Chairman in passing the impugned order exercising the review power Under Section 27(2) of the Water Act. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has urged that on this ground itself the review order passed by the Board is liable to be set aside.

24. The said contentions are seriously contested by the learned Counsel Mr. E.R. Divakar on behalf of the Board contending that the allegations made in the Writ Petition contending that the order is passed without, hearing the petitioner, is contrary to the facts on record maintained by the Board and further the petitioner and the Construction Company were heard on the date the review petition fixed for hearing on 25.07.2007 and thereafter the order is passed by the Board reversing its earlier order and granted CFE in favour of the Construction Company Further he has contended that the various reckless allegations made against the Chairman of the Board, who has exercised his quasi-judicial power, is without any factual foundation. The allegations made in the writ petition are all untrue as could be seen from the records maintained by the Board. Further, exercise of power by the Chairman of the Board as Delegated Authority is permissible Under Section 11A of the Water Act as the Board has passed the resolution delegating its authority in his favour to exercise its power for grant of the CFE or review its order in exercise of power Under Section 25 and 27(2) of the Water Act. Therefore the order passed by the first respondent affirmed by the appellate Authority are all legal and valid, and therefore the same need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

25. Learned senior Counsel Mr. U.L. Bhat, appearing on behalf of the Con3truction Company had sought to justify the order of review dated 28.09.2007 reviewing its earlier order date 25.11.2006. The said order has been communicated vide order dated 12.10.2007. Therefore the order of the Board is legal and valid, hence the same need not be interfered with by this Court. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has no legal right to be heard for reviewing the order by the Board in the review petition filed by the Construction Company before the Board, nonetheless he has been given audience and he has been represented by his Lawyer on 25.07.2007, he was very much present in the proceedings before the Board. This fact is reflected in the order sheet and the record maintained in the case by the Board. Therefore the contentions urged by the petitioner's Senior Counsel that the order Impugned in the writ petition is a nullity in the eye of law for non compliance of Principles of Natural Justice by the Board Is factually Incorrect hence he has urged that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner are required to be rejected by this Court.

26. Further, it is vehemently urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Construction Company that the order passed by the first respondent is legal and valid as the same is passed on facts and documentary evidence produced by the Construction Company, showing the rejection of its application for grant of CFE by the Board to construct the building, was erroneous that was noticed by the Chairman of the Board and rightly reviewed its order and granted CFE to facilitate the Construction Company to construct the building in the plot in question. Therefore he has requested this Court to reject, the Writ Petition as the same is devoid of merit.

W.P. No. 18904/2006

27. It is the case of the petitioner Construction Company - M/s.Paranjape Schemes, Bangalore that the second respondent Minister of Environment and Forest has issued a notification bearing No. S.O.60(E) dated 27/01/94, wherein it is provided for a list of projects which require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government and details of the procedure for such projects is mentioned in the said notification, which is applicable to the building in question.

28. According to the petitioner the construction projects are not being listed in the schedule mentioned in the said notification and the third respondent issued another notification dated 21/06/2003 in No. FEE 195 EVN 2002 in consultation with the first respondent-Board. The said notification is produced at Annexure-C along with the petition. Clause 9 of the said notification provides that 'Licenses for both orange and green category industries shall be issued by the Municipalities/Municipal Corporation, after the industry obtains Consent for Establishment ('CFE') from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board'. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) as per its notification bearing No. SO 801 (E) dated 7/7/2004 Annexure-D by which after Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of Annexure B Sub-clause (g) and (h) were inter aha inserted and item 31 being New Construction Projects1 and item 32 being 'New Industrial Estates' was also inter alia Inserted. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of the said notification, any construction project falling under Entry 31 of the Schedule I including new townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hospitals and office complexes for 1,000 (one thousand) persons or below or discharging sewage of 50,000 (fifty thousand) liters per day or below or with an investment of Rs. 50.00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty crores) or below.

29. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban Department, Bangalore, has passed conversion order in favour of the Niketan Shlters Pvt. Ltd. Under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called as KLR Act) converting the land for non agricultural purpose situated at Pattandur Agrahara, Whitefield, K.R. Purarn Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk in Sy. No. 19/2 (admeasuring 82,764 sq. ft. for public/Semi public use and fend in Sy. No. 147/4 admeasuring 29,403 sq. ft., and 148/2 admeasuring 94,743 sq. ft. for residential use. The Board as per its notification bearing No. KPSCB/321/CC/2003 reclassified red/orange and green categories of Industries. The apartments are included at item 62 of the Green category. The petitioner further stated that pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of M/s.Niketan Shelters Pvt. Ltd., on 03/03/2005 registered in the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar's office it purchased all that piece and parcel of the converted land for a sale consideration of Rs. 6.82 lakhs (Rupees six crores and eighty two lakhs). The said Niketan Shelters Pvt. Ltd., along with M/s.Paranjape Schemes Construction Ltd., formed partnership on 16/9/2005 duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act whereby the said converted property was transferred in favour of the said Constructions Limited. Therefore, it became the absolute owner of the said property.

30. M/s.Paranjape Schemes Construction Ltd., Bangalore, the petitioner entered into memorandum of understanding with M/s.Athashri Foundation, a company incorporated Under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 being a Charitable Company, whereby the petitioner would construct apartment, building in the land bearing Sy.No. 147/4 and 148/2 for Senior Citizens and M/s.Athashri Foundation shall provide certain services for the benefit of senior citizens. The petitioner and M/s.Athashri Foundation have developed two projects for senior citizens of Pune in pursuance of a similar arrangement. The Commissioner, CMC Mahadevapura has issued licence dated 8/8/2005 as per the Government Order bearing No. HUD 80 BLR 96 dated 7/3/1996 for construction of apartment building comprising of ground + three upper floors consisting of 118 apartments in the first phase property subject to it obtaining environmental clearance from the KSPC Board, which must be produced at the time of occupancy certificate and conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board to be strictly adhered to.

31. Petitioner further submits that one Mr. C.J. Singh filed a writ petition in the form of Public Interest litigation before this Court in which M/s.Paranjape Schemes Construction Ltd., Bangalore, wherein the petitioner herein was made as Respondent No. 7 - Pollution Board, CMC, Mahadevapura, City Municipal Council and B.D.A. are also mode as respondents. Initially in the Public Interest Litigation, this Court restrained the petitioner Paranjape Schemes Construction Ltd., from carrying out construction of the building in the said property. Application was filed for vacating the interim stay dated 1/3/2006 permitting the petitioner to commence the construction of the building upon obtaining commencement certificate subject to the result of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the building plan was issued in accordance with the Building Bye laws and zonal Regulations, the same did not contemplate obtaining environmental clearance at the time of issue of sanctioned plan from the Pollution Control Board.

32. The petitioner submitted two application forms to the Board seeking for grant of permission Under Section 25/26 of the Water Act and in Form - I for permission Under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As per the Inspection report of the Pollution Control Board dated 17/6/2006 it is confirmed that the application was submitted by the petitioner which was duly filled and no details were missing and petitioner was not putting up construction on the said property in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the PIL filed by C.J. Singh. Further it is stated that the Pollution Control Board by its letter dated 30/6/2006 has directed the Construction Company not to proceed with any further construction activity upon the property, failing which criminal case would be initiated against it.

33. It is further stated that as per the observation of the Board one consolidated application was submitted by the Construction Company for development of the entire property and no fees was paid in this regard. In response to the same, the petitioner replied to the Board stating that neither they have received any show cause notice on 10/4/2006 nor the property was inspected by an official of the Board on 5/5/2006 arid further denied that their application to take permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). According to the sanctioned plan it was required to obtain MOEF at the time of obtaining occupancy certificate. Further it is stated that the application to MOEF on 15/7/2006 for development of the said property which included first and second phase property stating that inter alia construct totally 206 apartments and the said property is to be developed for senior citizens.

34. It is its further case that the Board issued public notice dated 21/7/2006 in the Hindu news paper intimating for Environmental Public Hearing on 23/8/2006 at 12.00 noon. The petitioner on 26/7/20C6 had submitted an Evaluation Report to the Board issued by the Science and Technology parks, Pune with respect to the Occupancy Status and the Effluents/Sewerage discharge from the building in order to facilitate the Board for considering its application for grant of CEF with additional/better information and further it has submitted a letter dated 3/8/2006 requesting the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment for exemption from obtaining prior environmental clearance to the building in question as it is being constructed for Senior Citizens Homes. It had also addressed letter dated 5/8/2006 to the MOEF for necessary action with respect to the aforesaid letter. In fact the petitioner vide its letter dated 11/8/2006 informed the Ministry of Ecology, Environment and Forest that the notification Annexures-'B' & 'D' dated 27/1/1994 and 7/7/2004 respectively are not applicable to the Building in question in the case of development activities for the reasons stated therein.

35. The petitioner has submitted necessary applications in the prescribed Form - I, Form - XIII and Form - OG on 13/6/2006 to the Board for grant of permission CFE Under Section 25 of the Water Act and under Section 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It had inspected the property in question on 17/6/2006 and reported the application is duly filed. It had issued acknowledgements bearing Nos. 1275 and 1276 respectively on 13/6/2006 for Phase I & II respectively for having received applications. According to the petitioner as per Section 25(7) of Water Act, it is deemed that the said Board has issued to the petitioner CFE as per the aforesaid applications filed by the Construction Company. In support of its contention it had placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vijayanagar Education Trust (Regd.) Bangalore v. K.S.P.C.B. reported in : AIR 2002 Kar 123. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Board has not replied or responded to it with regard to the application forms submitted by it from the date of its submission until 25/11/2006. The petitioner has also produced certified copies of the criminal complaint filed on 14/12/2006 against the petitioner by the Board and in CC No. 849/2006. Perusal of the documents along with the complaint it is clear that the petitioner constructed 1910 flats in the plot in question, which is factually incorrect. Para 8 of the said complaint discloses the fact that on the basis of document No. 4 referred to in the complaint, the site was inspected by the Board on 17/6/2006 and found that the construction work was stopped due to the writ petition before this Court. The documents 2 & 3 to the complaint, the alleged mahazars dated 5/4/2006, show cause notice dated 10/4/2006 did not bear the signature of any person working for the petitioner, who were said to have been present at the time of conducting mahazar by the officials of the Board and received the show cause notice. The public interest litigation W.P. No. 14956/2006 was filed by C.J. Singh on 25/10/2006. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the refusal order passed by the Board in net granting CFE urging various grounds and prayed to set aside the same and grant CFE in its favour.

36. The grounds urged by the petitioner are that the petitioner is required to obtain CFE, only when the 5th respondent CMC issued occupancy certificate as per the conditions stipulated in the sanctioned plan. Further it is contended that the applications filed by it before the Board were not rejected by it within the stipulated mandatory period Under Section 25)( of the Water Act and therefore it has to be declared that there is deemed grant of CFE in favour of the petitioner by fiction of law. Further it is stated that petitioner has already got environment impact assessment clearance and it has duly complied with the directions of the Board with respect to the construction activities and no criminal act is committed by it. As such no criminal action can be initiated against them. For the reasons stated above, it is contended that there is no application of mind on the part of the Board for rejection of the applications for grant of CFE, which action of it has caused irreparable injury and loss, the same is in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. It is further stated that construction of the building was commenced by it as per the sanctioned plan and the licence issued by the C.M.C. of Mahadevapura in its favour and petitioner had undertaken all the measures to comply with the provisions of law. The act of the first respondent is in violation of the fundamental rights of the Construction Co., which is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution of India. Further it is the case of the Construction Co., that the Board did not have the authority to file the criminal cases against it as the same is without application of mind and complying with the provisions of Section 15 of Environment Protection Act of 1986. As such no penal action could have been initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the Construction Co. submitted that it is entitled for the reliefs as prayed by it in the writ petition.

37. In the said writ petition, application is filed by one Sri C.J. Singh, who is the petitioner in the above referred public interest writ petition requesting this Court to permit him to come on record as a party respondent in the proceedings and oppose the reliefs as prayed by the Construction Company as he is interested person in view of the pendency of public interest litigation initiated by him against the very same property against the same Construction Co., The said application is opposed by the Construction Co., by filing statement of objections inter alia contending that having regard to the nature of the prayer sought for by it in its writ petition, the impleading applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the proceedings and he has no locus standi to come on record as a party and oppose for grant of any one of the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition as the lis is brought by it against the Board seeking declaration from this Court about its entitlement to the benefit flowing from Section 27(5) of the Water Act in respect of the project proposed by it. Therefore, it is stated that the application filed by the impleading applicant is a frivolous application with a view to harass the Construction Co., Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the impleading application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

38. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions, the following points would arise in these proceedings of ail the above referred writ petitions for consideration:

WP No. 936/2006:

(1) Whether there is a contravention of Condition Nos. 1 to 5 of the Conversion Order dated 1/8/2003 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore by the Construction Co.,?

(2) Whether the Construction Co., was required to get the layout plan approved from the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 32 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 as stipulated in Condition No. l of the Conversion Order?

(3) Whether the building in question is a Group House or a Single Building?

(4) Whether the commencement of the construction of the building upon the plot in question on the basis of the sanctioned plan and licence issued by the CMC, as on that date, CFE was not granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and therefore construction of the building is illegal?

(5) Whether the construction of the building is in violation of the Zonal Regulations and Building Bye laws applicable to the plot in question?

(6) Whether there is any violation of fundamental rights or statutory rights of the neighbouring residents in particular the residents of the locality in general or other citizens by constructing the building in the plot without obtaining CFE from the Board as on that date arid no public road access either to ingress or egress to the building, thereby public injury is caused and therefore public interest is affected?

WP No. 4100/2008:

(1) Whether the Construction Co., had the statutory right for seeking review of the earlier order of the Board under Section 25( of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974?

(2) Whether the Pollution Control Board has got power to review its order of refusal to grant CFE in favour of the Construction Co.,?

(3) Whether the review order is passed by the Board in compliance with the provisions of Section 25)( the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and in compliance of the principles of natural justice?

(4) Whether the grant of CFE in favour of the Construction Co., is by the Pollution Control Board and whether there is proper delegation of power by the Board in favour of the Chairman for reviewing its earlier order of rejection for issuing CFE in its favour?

WP No. 18904/2006:

(1) Whether the notification dated 21/6/2003 issued under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is applicable to the construction activity of the Construction Co., in view of non-mentioning of the nature of buildings at entry 31 of the First Schedule to the Notification?

(2) In view of the application filed by the Construction Co., to the Board in Form No. 1, Form No. 13 and the acknowledgements 1275 & 1276 dated 13/6/2006 obtained by the Construction Company, since no action taken by the Board within the stipulated period of limitation as provided under Section 25)( of the Water (Prevention and Control (sic).

(3) Whether the Construction Co., is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition?

CCC No. 231 of 2008:

(1) Whether there is any deliberate and intentional disobedience of the interim order dated 1/4/2008 in WP No. 4100/2008 passed by this Court by the Construction Co., by constructing the building upon the plot in question and the allegations of contempt of court of this Court in carrying on with the construction work by it in the plot is a civil contempt committed by it and is it liable for conviction and sentence?

(2) What order?

39. The aforesaid points have been formulated by us in these proceedings and same are answered by us in seriatim case-wise by assigning the following reasons:

Point Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P. No. 936/2006:

The above points are inter-related and therefore answered together. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore on the application filed by the erstwhile owner of the property in question passed an order of conversion dated 1/8/2003 in exercise of his power Under Section 95(2) of the KLR Act subject to terms and conditions to be adhered to by the owner. The conditions enumerated in the order are very relevant to be extracted in this judgment, they read as hereunder:

1. The beneficiary has any rights except get a permission from the competent authority i.e. Development Authority, C.M.C./T.M.C./Pollution Control Board/Village Panchayat for the purpose for which the permission is granted.

2. The converted land shall be utilized to the extent of 2 Acres 33 guntas for the purpose of residential and 1 acre 37 guntas for the purpose of public/semi-public. The land shall not utilize without prior permission.

3. The construction shall be constructed as per the sanctioned plan sanctioned by the Development Board/CMC/TMC/Pollution Control Board/Village Panchayat purporting to construct under the sanction layout and license etc.,

4. Land shall be reserved requiring to road margin, road vacant etc., as per the sanction layout plan & License sanctioned by the Development Board/CMC/PRM/Pollution Control Board.

5. It is an obligation of the applicant to provide civic amenities like electricity, water and sewerage etc. In view of the public interest sanitation and Safety as per the law in the said land of site owners.

6. Land shall be reserved for the Government purpose as per the SE 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 if found any bit pot Kharab in the said land and o.02 guntas of land comes under (B) Kharab consisting in Survey No. 148/2 in the said converted land. The same shall be reserved for the public purpose and the applicant does not have any right over said Kharab land and the rights of the extent (B) Kharab land is belong to Government to that effect the Tahasildar shall enter the same in R.T.C.

7. The distance of 40 meters from the center of the road national and State highway and 25 meters for district road not to construct any construction in the purporting the said land as per the Government Order No. PWD 7556-665R and Central Government Transport Department vide its Letter No. P1/7(ii)67 dated 1.1.96.

8. Conversion order shall be stand cancel without assigning any order if contravention of above conditions and action shall be taken to impose any penalty as per SE/96 of KLR Act 1964 and the expenditure for the same shall be recovered as per the arrears of land Revenue.

9. The order with regard to the said subjected to any decision of Courts suit/writ petition/appeal.

40. From reading of the aforesaid conditions, Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his statutory power under Section 95(2) of KLR Act after satisfying the request made by the owner passed the conversion order to use the agricultural land for non agricultural purpose. As could be seen from Condition No. l, the beneficiary of the conversion order has got right to make use of the property in question for non agricultural purpose after obtaining permission from the competent authorities namely Development Authority/CMC/TMC/Pollution Control Board/Village Panchayat for the purpose for which the permission is granted in favour of the owner of the property. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner C.J. Singh by the Senior Counsel Smt.Nalini Chidambaram, is that the property in question comes within the Local planning Area, which is the Bangalore Development Authority as per the notification dated 13/3/1984 wherein Schedule-I discloses the list of villages' included in the Local planning Area environs of Bangalore and the boundaries mentioned in the second schedule, the property in question falls within the said Schedule. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority is the Bangalore Development Authority and the provisions of BDA Act are applicable to the property. Hence Section 32 of the BDA Act is attracted. That is, what is stated in the conversion order by the Special Deputy Commissioner while passing the conversion order in respect of the property in question. The said contention has been seriously contested by the learned Senior Counsel Sri U.L. Bhat, on behalf of the Construction Co., contending that the construction of the building upon the property in question is a non agricultural purpose but Section 32 of the BDA Act is not attracted is evident from the provisions of Section 17(1), Section 26 of KT & CP Act read with Rule 36 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 and there is neither subdivision of a plot or formation of private street or laying the private street and therefore the layout plan is not required to be approved by the BDA as provided under Section 32 of the BDA Act. Therefore, he would submits that provisions of the BDA Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. Hence Condition No. 1 is not violated by the Construction Co., in not obtaining layout, plan from the BDA and getting the sanctioned plan from the Commissioner of Mahadevapura City Municipality and construction of the building in question upon the converted property is not in violation of the conversion order. Therefore, there is no public injury or public interest will be suffered as alleged by the petitioner who has espoused the pubic cause and therefore he submits that the contentions urged in this regard are wholly untenable in law, hence liable to be rejected.

41. With reference to the above rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have carefully examined the provisions of Section 32 of the BDA Act, which reads as follows:

32. Forming of new extensions or layouts or making new private streets:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon without the express sanction in writing of the Authority and except in accordance with such conditions as the Authority may specify:

Provided that where any such extension or layout lies within the local limits of the Corporation, the Authority shall not sanction the formation of such extension or layout without the concurrence of the Corporation:

Provided further that where the Corporation and the Authority do not agree on the formation of or the conditions relating to the extension or layout, the matter shall he referred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final.

(2) Any person intending to form an extension or layout or to make a private street, shall send to the (Commissioner) a written application with plans and Sections showing the following particulars:

(a) the laying out of the sites of the area upon streets, lands or open spaces;

(b) the intended level, direction and width of the street;

(c) the street alignment and the building line and the proposed sites abutting the streets;

(d) the arrangement to be made for levelling, paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, sewering, draining, conserving and lighting the streets and for adequate drinking water supply.

(3) The provisions of this Act and any rules or bye-laws made under it as to the level and width of streets and the height of buildings abutting shall apply also in the case of streets referred to in Sub-section (2) and all the particulars referred to in that Sub-section shall be subject to the approval of the Authority.

(4) Within six months after the receipt of any application under Sub-section (2), the Authority shall either sanction the forming of the extension or layout or making of street on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow it or ask for further information with respect to it.

(5) The Authority may require the applicant to deposit, before sanctioning the application, the sums necessary for meeting the expenditure for making roads, side-drains, culverts, underground drainage and water supply and lighting and the charges for such other purposes as such applicant may be called upon by the Authority, provided the applicant also agrees to transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains and open spaces laid out by him to the Authority permanently without claiming any compensation therefor.

[(5-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Authority may require the applicant to deposit before sanctioning the application such further sums in addition to the sums referred to in Sub-section (5) to meet such portion of the expenditure as the Authority may determine towards the execution of any scheme or work for augmenting water supply, electricity, roads, transportation and such other amenities within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area.]

(6) Such sanction may be refused,-

(i) if the proposed street would conflict with any arrangements which have been made or which in the opinion of the Authority if likely to be made for carrying out any general scheme of street improvement or other schemes of development or expansion by the Authority; or

(ii) if the proposed street does not conform to the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws referred to in Sub-section (3) or

(iii) if the proposed street is not designed so as to connect at one end with a street which is already open; or

[(iii-a) if the proposed extension or layout is on the land which is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the development scheme under this Act, and in respect of which a notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 is already published; or]

(iv) if the layout in the opinion of the Authority cannot be fitted with any existing or proposed expansion or development schemes of the Authority.

(7) No person shall form a layout or make any new private street without the sanction of or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions imposed by the Authority. If the Authority requires further information from the applicant no steps shall be taken by him to form the layout or make the street until orders have been passed by the Authority after the receipt of such information:

Provided that the passing of such orders shall not, in any case, be delayed for more than, six months after the Authority has received all the information which it considers necessary to enable it to deal finally with the said application.

(8) If the Authority does not refuse sanction within six months from the date of the application under Sub-section (2) or from the date of receipt of all information asked for under Sub-section (7), such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form the extension or layout or to make the street, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye- laws made under it.

(9) Any person who forms or attempts to form any extension or layout in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) or makes any street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Authority under this section, shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

42. The said provision of the BDA Act is required to be read along with Rule 36 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 which reads thus:

36. Particulars regarding layout plan and period for sanction of plan under Section 17.- (1) Every person submitting a plan for sub-division of plot or a layout of a private street to the Planning Authority for sanction under Section 17 shall submit such plan in triplicate which shall not be less in size than the one to be prepared on a scale of 1 : 600 fl inch - 50 inches) and shall include therein such of the following particulars, as may be relevant to the layout, namely.-

(i) sub-divisions of his plot and details of proposed land use;

(ii) site plan showing the existing access to the land included in the layout and the surrounding lands;

(iii) the dimensions of each of the proposed sub-divisions;

(iv) width of the proposed streets; and

(v) dimensions of open spaces provided for in the layout plan.

(3) The period within which a Planning Authority may sanction or refuse to sanction a layout submitted to it under Section 17 shall be ninety days from the date of its receipt by the Planning Authority.

[(2-A) The Planning Authority may levy a fee specified in column (2) of Table below for the purposes specified in column (1) thereof,---------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Purpose Rate of Fee--------------------------------------------------------------------1. Scrutiny of Layout Plans and [One paisa per squaredesigns and effecting metre of land subject to amodifications minimum of five rupees)--------------------------------------------------------------------2. Supply of copies of plaits or Sixteen rupees per squaremaps meter of plan--------------------------------------------------------------------

43. For sanction of the plan, there is a reference in Section 17 of the KT & CP Act. This provision of the Act clearly provides for sanction of the plan for sub-division of plot or lay-out of private street. Section 26 of KT & CP Act, provides for town planning scheme and its contents. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the above Act reads thus:

(2) Such town planning scheme may make provisions for any of the following matters namely.-

(a) the laying out or relaying out of land, either vacant or already built upon;

(b) the filling up or reclamation of low- lying, swamp or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land;

(c) lay-out of new streets or roads; construction, diversion, extension, alteration, improvement and stopping up of streets, roads and communications;

(d) the construction, alteration and removal of buildings, bridges and other structures,

(e) the allotment or reservation of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets, green belts and dairies, transport facilities and public purposes of all kinds;

(f) drainage inclusive of sewerage, surface or sub-soil drainage and sewage disposal;

(g) lighting;

(h) water supply;

(i) the preservation of objects of historical or national interest or natural beauty and of building actually used for religious purposes;

(j) the imposition of conditions and restrictions in regard to the open space to be maintained about buildings, the percentage of building area for a plot, the number, size, height and character of buildings allowed in specified areas, the purposes to which buildings or specified areas may or may not be appropriated, the sub-division of plots, the discontinuance of objectionable users of land in any area in reasonable periods, parking space and leading and unloading space for any building and the sizes of projections and advertisement signs;

(k) the suspension, so far as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the scheme, of any rule, bye-law, regulation, notification or order, made or issued under any Act of the State Legislature or nay of the Acts which the State Legislature is competent to amend;

(l) such other matter not inconsistent with the objects of this Act as may be prescribed.

44. By reading of the aforesaid Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of KT & CP Act, it makes it very clear that layout plan or laying out of land is for the purpose of the development of housing scheme in respect of which either the development authority or a private developer develop the land for the purpose of laying out the land by providing necessary particulars mentioned In Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of KT & CP Act and further by a careful reading of Rule 36 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 speaks of layout plan and period for sanction of plan Under Section 17 to the planning authority that the subdivisions of plan and details of proposed land use and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 36 of the Rules provides that the Planning Authority within the period of 90 days either to sanction or refuse the layout plan submitted to it. Under Section 17 of the KT & CP Act from the date of its receipt by the Planning Authority. Section 32 of the BDA Act speaks of the Planning Authority of the BDA has to sanction the layout plan for forming new extensions or layouts or making new private streets. The said provision clearly speaks that 'notwithstanding anything contrary to the law for the time being in force, no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon without the express sanction in writing of the authority and except in accordance with such conditions as the authority may specify.' If this provision is read along with Rule 36 of the Planning Authority Rules, 1965 makes it very clear that subdivision of plot is referred to under Section 17 of the KT & CP Act and if this provision is read along with Section 26 of the KT & CP Act for the purpose of implementing the proposals in the Comprehensive Development Flan, the Town Planning Scheme required to furnish the particulars by the developer as provided under Clauses (a) to (e) which clearly state that there is no need for the Construction Co., obtaining plan approved from the Local planning Authority as the construction of the building by the Construction Co., is not for the purpose of implementation of the proposals contained in the Comprehensive Development Plan, structure to form sites of various dimensions and forming the streets, roads open space and number of sites are not formed by it for the purpose of formation of residential layout and allotment 01 the same in favour of the persons by way of allotment or sale of the same and further it is not the layout as provided under Section 32 of the BDA Act. In the instant case, only one building is being constructed by the Construction Co., in an area of 2.33 acres plot. Indeed in the said building, number of residential portions are being provided by it, the same cannot be construed as independent buildings either in terms of building bye laws applicable to the building in question. Hence we have to say there is no need for formation of the layout by the Construction Co., and therefore there was no need for it to get layout plan sanctioned from the B.D.A. under Section 32 of the BDA Act. Accordingly the first point is answered in favour of the Construction Co.

Point No. 3 in the W.P. No. 936/06:

45. The aforesaid point is required to be answered against the petitioner for the following reasons.

Reasons

The contentions urged by learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the public interest litigation petition is that the building in question is a group housing in terms of the definition of Group Housing in BMP Bye law 2.40. But there are number of flats in each floor of the building, they are dwelling units in each floor. Therefore it is not a single building. Hence the means of access to the said building as per the table 9 of building Bye laws, table 24 of the Zonal Regulations the plot area in square meter is morethan 1000 square feel, the road width in meters must be over 15 meters and therefore it is a group housing and therefore the Planning Authority is the B.D.A. Undisputedly the licence and sanctioned plan is not issued by the said Authority. Hence the sanctioned plan by the City Municipality of Mahadevapura is without Authority of law. The said contention is strongly rebutted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri U.I.Bhat, placing strong reliance upon the definition of plot or site under Bye law Clause 2.66 of the Building Bye laws and Bye law Clause 8.0 which defines 'means of access' and placing reliance upon table 24 of the Zoning of Land Use and Regulations to show that the building in question is not a group housing or it does nor consist of more than two buildings in a plot with one or more floors or with one or more dwelling units in each flooring arid they are connected by an access of more than 3.5 meters in width or the building is not approachable directly from the existing road.

46. With reference to the above said rival legal contentions we have examined the same very carefully and we are required to answer the same against the petitioner for following reasons. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the definitions of 'group housing' and 'plot or site' under Bye law Clause Nos. 2.40 & 2.66 of the Building Bye Laws, which defines group housing, the same reads as follows:

2.40 'group housing' means more than two building on a plot with one or more floors and with one or more dwelling units in each floor. They are connected by an access of not less than 3.5m in width, if they are not approachable from the road.

2.66 'plot or site' means a continuous portion of the land be demarcated by definite boundary including the land within the cartilage of the building and forming its appurtenance, such as out buildings, yard, court, open space, and garden attached thereto or intended to be occupied therein.

By careful reading of the aforesaid Bye law Clause No. 2.66, according to which the plot or site means continuing portion of land, be demarcated by definite boundary including the land within the cartilage of the building and forming its appurtenances as could be seen from the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in respect of the land measuring 2.33 acres, is a plot converted for residential purpose and the City Municipality of Mahadevapura has sanctioned plan and the licence for construction of a building in the plot which is demarcated by definite boundary including the land and the cartilage of the building and form its appurtenances with open space, garden attached thereto to be occupied therein, the said bye-law is to be read with the definition of 'group Housing' as defined in Clause 2.40 of the Bye-law as extracted above. According to this definition there must be more than two buildings on a plot with one or more floors and with one or more dwelling units in each floor and they must be connected by an access of not less than 3.5 meters in width and they are not approachable directly from the road. The said definition does not fit into the building which is being constructed by the Construction Co., upon the plot as per the sanctioned plan and the licence issued by the City Municipality of Mahadevapura in favour of the Construction Co., and therefore the contention of the writ petitioner in the PIL petition that building in question is a 'group Housing' cannot be accepted by this Court.

47. Further as per Bye law Clause No. 8.1 the means of access to the building in question means exclusive access other than thorough public roads and streets and shall not be more than 30 meters in length, public road from the street. The minimum width of such access shall be 3.5 meters and further construction of building with plots of common access shall be regulated according to such common access roads. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Construction Co., has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid Building Bye Laws Clauses which are applicable to the building in question. Therefore we have to accept his submission and hold that it is not a 'group Housing' to attract the Table No. 9 of the Building Bye laws as contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in the PIL petitions. There must be public road, width of 30 feet for the flat area in square meter is over 1000. The road width in meters must be over 15 meter is not correct as the said table is not applicable to the building in question. Accordingly we answer the said point in favour of the Construction Company and against the petitioner in PIL petition.

48. The construction of the building is not a group housing and further we have stated that 'means of access' to the Building is very much available, this aspect is clear from Clause 8 of the Building Bye laws, which reads thus:

8.1 The means of exclusive access other than thorough public roads and streets, shall not be of more than 30 meters in length from a public road or street. The minimum width of such access shall be 3.5 meters. F.A.R. and height of buildings coming up on such plots connected by means of exclusive access shall be regulated according to the width of public street or road. If the means of access exceeds 30.00 meters in length, FAR shall be regulated with reference to the width of such access road. Construction of building on plots with common access/lanes from the public road/street shall be regulated according to the width of such common access roads/lanes.

8.2 Existing conservancy lanes are not allowed to be used as means of access to the properties.

8.3 No building shall be erected so as to obstruct the means of access of any other building.

8.4 No person shall erect a building so as to encroach upon the means of access.

8.5 The means of access shall be clearly shown in the plans submitted indicating the width, length from the public road, width of the public road from which the access is taken etc.

8.6 Every such means of access shall be drained and lighted to the satisfaction of the Authority and manhole covers or other drainage, water or any other fittings, laid in such means of access shall flush with the finished surface level so as not to obstruct the safe movement.

8.7 The existing width of the means of access shall not be reduced in any case.

49. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.U.L. Bhat has rightly placed reliance upon Annexure III of Clause 8b of the Zoning Regulations, wherein the floor area ratio (FAR) has been defined as the quotient obtained by dividing the total covered area of all floors by the plot area. Floor area includes the Mezzanine floor also. Therefore construction of the building upon the plot in question is in confirmity with Clause Nos. 8.0 to 9.2 of the Building Bye Laws in table 24, 15 meters road is referable to the public road but not intermediate road of 20 ft. which will have access to the public road. That road is 3.5 meters width and 30 meters in length. The same is in confirmity with the Building Bye Laws and Zonal Regulations and therefore we have to hold that obtaining sanction plan and licence by the construction company limited from CMC Mahadevapura for construction of the building upon the plot in question can neither be termed as in violation of Section 187 of the Municipalities Act 1964 or Building Bye Laws of 2003 which are made applicable to the plot in question for sanction of the plan and issuance of licence and Zoning of Land Use under the Regulations framed by the B.D.A. in exercise of its power under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) of Sections 12 and 21 of the KT & CP Act. Therefore, the legal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is violation of fundamental rights and statutory rights of the neighboring residents of the building and the construction which is being made upon the plot in question is both factually and legally incorrect and therefore submission made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced as the petitioner has failed to show that there is violation of fundamental rights and statutory rights of the public in general, whose cause is being sought to be expoused by him in these public interest litigation initiated by him by filing petitions to show that there is a public injury caused to the public at large. Therefore this Court has to entertain that Writ Petition filed by him are misconceived. Therefore we hold that there is no violation of the said rights and no public injury. Hence there is no merit in these public interest litigation. Accordingly we have answered the aforesaid point against the petitioner.

Point Nos. 4 and 5 in W.P. No. 936/06 and point Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4100/08:

50. The above points are inter related and therefore the same answered together in favour of the construction company limited against the petitioner by assigning the following reasons. First we answer the point Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4100/08, as the answer to the said points would be an answer to the point Nos. 4 & 5 in the writ petition No. 936/06.

Sections 2(g), 2(gg) and 2(k) of the Water Act defines 'sewage effluent' - means effluent from any sewerage system or sewege disposal works and includes sullage from open drains; 'sewer' means any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent; and 'trade effluent' includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any other than domestic sewage, respectively. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of the Act. learned Senior Counsel Smt.Nalini Chidambaram submits that there will be number of occupants in the dwelling units provided in the building, there will be a sewage effluent from sewerage system and carrying sewage in the channel and the trade effluent is discharged both in the form of liquid and solid substance from which, one of the dwelling house which amounts to carrying on a process term of disposal system other than the domestic sewage. Therefore she has placed reliance upon the Notification dated 7.7.2004 at Sl. No. 31 of the first schedule of the said Notification issued by the Union of India in exercise of its statutory power under Section 3(ii) of the Environment Protections Act of 1986. Therefore it is submitted that as on the date of commencement of the construction of the building by the Construction Co. upon the plot in question the Consent for Effluent Certificate was not obtained by it from the Board as required under Section 25 of the Act. Hence construction of the building is in contravention of Section 25 of the Act. Therefore It is illegal and further placed reliance upon the bye law Clause 7.1 of the Building Bye Laws as the site is not drained properly on account of which there will be sewage effluent will not be discharged from sewerage system on account of which there will be water pollution. Hence grant of building licence and sanctioned plan by the Commissioner of City Municipality of Mahadevapma for the construction of the building is illegal. The said submission is strongly rebutted by learned Senior Counsel Sri U.L. Bhat interalia contending that vide Notification dated 07.07.2004 issued by the Central Government under Sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 is not applicable to the Building of the Construction Co., In para 3(ii) sub para (g) which is inserted provides that 'any construction project falling under entry 31 of Schedule I Including new townships, Industrial townships settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel complexes, hospitals and office complexes for 1000 persons or below of discharging sewage of 50.000 liters per day or below or with an investment of Rs. 50.00 crores or below'. The said Notification has no application to the building in question for the reason that such number of persons will not be in occupation and discharge of sewage or trade effluent of the aforesaid quantity. Therefore non-obtaining CFE from Pollution Control Board for construction of the building as required Under Section 25 of the Water Act is not tenable in law Alternatively it is submitted by him that City Municipality at the time of sanctioning the plan and issuing licence in favour of the construction Co. has expressly stated, which is very clear that the consent for construction Certificate shall be produced at the time of occupation of the building in fact, the Pollution Control Board no doubt refused for grant of the said Certificate vide its order dated 25.11.2006 that order was subsequently reviewed by the Pollution Control Board in exercise of its power under Section 25)( vide its order dated 22.09.2007. No doubt, this order is seriously challenged by the very same petitioner in W.P. No. 4100/08 contending that order of the Chairman of the Board is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as the same is passed without hearing him and the same is not passed by the Board as required in law and there are so many manipulations in the record. Therefore, he had sought for quashing the same. The above said legal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are strongly rebutted by the Pollution Control Board Counsel Mr. Divakar by producing its original record to show that the said contentions are factually incorrect and to further justified the order of consent passed by the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board as a delegate of the Board which is permissible under Section 11A of the Water Act 1974 and further the same is passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore it is contended by him that the legal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are not tenable in law, requested this Court to reject the same. In addition to the above said legal contention urged on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, learned Senior Counsel Sri U.L. Bhat for Construction Co., placing strong reliance upon Section 27(2) of the Water Act, 1974, submitted that the said Board may from time to time review any condition imposed to CEF under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 or Section 26 of the said Section is read along with Section 28 of the said Act, the right of appeal is provided to an aggrieved person by an order passed by the Pollution Control Board under Section 25, 26 or 27. Therefore it is submitted by him that the aggrieved person in relation to the order passed by the Board granting consent certificate can only be the person to whom refusal to grant consent for construction of the Building as required under the provisions of the Act (is refused). Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has no right either in his individual capacity or in the capacity of public interest litigation seeking to quash the review order on the ground that the order is passed by the Board in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, which is factually incorrect and therefore he submits that the said contention is wholly untenable in law. Further, it is contended by him that not withstanding the aforesaid legal contentions urged by him he submits that the Chairman of the Board has given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order in exercise; of his review power under Section 27(2) of the Act. Further, the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the various allegations made against the Chairman of the Board contending that they are all uncharitable, which are contrary to the record and further contended that the Board had passed a resolution delegating its power in favour of the Chairman of the Board to perform such duties of it from time to time are delegated to him by the Board, which is legally permissible. Further he submits that discharge of sewage or effluent or through the sewage lines that are required to be connected to the channel or sewage lines constructed by BWSSB. Therefore he has contended that there is compliance of the provisions of the Water and Air Pollution Act by the Construction Company Limited. Hence he has requested this Court to reject the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner.

51. With reference to the above said legal contentions of the learned Senior Counsel and Counsel for the Board, we have carefully examined legal grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner to find out the legality and validity of the same. As could be seen from the records made available by the learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board in which we find that there is an order passed by the Chairman of the Board in exercise of his power under Section 27(2)(b) of the Water Act. As per the Board Resolution, it has to grant consent in favour of the Construction Company Limited. Such power is very much available in the Pollution Control Board in the statute under Section 27(2)(b) which reads thus:

27(2)(b) the refusal of any consent referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 25 or Section 26 or grant of such consent without any condition, and may make such orders as it deems fit.

As could be seen from the record of the Board on the review application filed by the Construction Company, it has passed the order as it was aggrieved by the order of refusal to grant of consent in its favour earlier. The Chairman of the Board as a delegatee of the Board, as provided under Section 11A of the Act has passed resolution for grant of CFE to the construction co., He has examined the grounds urged in the review Application for reviewing refusal order in not granting consent passed by the Beard earlier. The same was reconsidered and reviewed its decision and granted the consent for construction of the building by the Company with certain conditions and therefore the same cannot be said it is vitiated in law for want of competence on the part of the Chairman or the Board in view of Section 11A of the Act and the Board has delegated its powers to him to be performed by it from time to time on the basis of its resolution. The resolution to this effect is very much available in the record of the Pollution Control Board. The correctness of the resolution is not questioned by the petitioner in this case. Therefore competence of the Chairman of the Board to review its order cannot be questioned contending that the order of review passed by an incompetent person. The said contention of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is wholly untenable in law. Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected. Further contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that earlier order passed by the Board could not have been reviewed by the Chairman for grant of consent under Section 27(2)(b) of the Water Act is also wholly untenable in law for the reason that by a careful reading of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 as the Act, abundantly makes it very clear that Board has got every power to review its earlier decisions or order from time to time. Further, as could be seen from Section 28 of the Act upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Construction Co., to substantiate his submission that neither the petitioner nor any other person has got right of hearing in the appeal against an order passed by the Board refusing to grant consent for construction is clear from the perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act, which makes it very clear that on receipt of appeal preferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 the Appellate Authority shall, after giving the appellant and the Board an opportunity of being heard, disposed of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The aforesaid provisions of the Act makes it very clear that the petitioner or any other public had no right of appeal against the refusal to giant consent for construction of the building and further right of review is only conferred upon a person, in whose favour the refusal of any consent referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 25 or 26 the Board may pass such order/orders as it deems fit by reviewing its order from time to time. The aforesaid provision of the Act does not provide for either giving a personal hearing or a public hearing either to the petitioner or public in general. Not withstanding the aforesaid legal contention urged on behalf of the Construction Co., as could be seen from the record produced by the Board it is seen that opportunity was given by the Chairman of the Board to the petitioner as a matter of fact before passing an order in the Review Petition reviewing his earlier decision in refusing to grant for construction of the building in favour of the Construction Company Limited. Therefore the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the factual position as evidenced from the record of the Pollution Control Board. Hence we reject the contentions urged in this regard by the petitioner's Senior Counsel and hold that passing an order in Review Petition under Section 27(2)(b) of the Water Act is legal and justified. Accordingly Point No. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4100/08 is answered in favour of the Construction Company and CFE is rightly granted by the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board by reviewing its earlier order, AS en the date of sanctioning the plan or before issuing licence or before commencement of the construction of the building upon the plot in question by the Construction Company Limited the CFE was not obtained by it, even then the same is in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25 and 27(2)(b) of the Water Act and the construction is under progress. There is consent for construction of the building issued by the Chairman of the Board. For the reasons stared supra, the commencement of the construction and construction of the building upon the plot in question cannot be termed as illegal as contended by the petitioner in the PIL petition. Point No. 4 in the W.P. No. 930/06 required to answered in favour of the Construction Company Limited. Accordingly, we answer the same.

Answer to Point No. 5.

52. Further, construction of the building upon the plot in question by the Construction Co., is not in violation of Zonal Regulation and Building Bye-Laws applicable to the property in question, for the reason that under the Zoning Regulation the land used is for residential purpose and comes within the residential zone, is not a contested fact, which is evidenced from the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(3) of the KLR Act and the said order is not challenged either by the petitioner or any other person and further construction of the building in the plot to provide apartments to the senior citizens as per the sanctioned plan by the Commissioner of City Municipality, Mahadevapura and further floor area, covered area, height, etc. as provided in item II(3) to the zoning of land use and Regulations of B.D.A. is in accordance with Regulations and further sanction of the plan by the CMC Mahadevapura as it is the local self Authority as per the Government order dated 07.03.1996. Hence the construction of the building by the Construction Co., is neither in violation of Zonal Regulations or Building Bye Laws applicable to the property in question.

Point No. 6 in W.P. No. 936/2006.

53. This point is answered against the petitioner for the following reasons.

The petitioner has not shown from either the pleadings or from the documentary evidence produced in this case to show that there is violation of the fundamental rights or statutory rights of either the petitioner or neighboring residents of the plot in question to bring a cause within the purview of public interest litigation as the action of the Construction Co., cause public injury. The legality of the construction of the building upon the plot in question by the Construction Company Limited either on the date of commencement of the construction of the Building and discharge of effluent or no public road access either for ingress or for egress to the building or from the building in available in the case of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not shown that either public injury or public interest will be suffered on account of violation of Rule of law. Hence this petitions filed by the petitioner is not in the public interest to maintain the public interest litigation. Undisputedly the Conversion Order is passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the then existing comprehensive development plan showing the plot in question in the residential zone is considered by him and exercised his statutory power under Section 95(3) of the KLR Act and passed an order of conversion dated 01.08.2003 converting the land from agricultural purpose to non agricultural purpose with certain terms and conditions. This order is not challenged by any person including the petitioner. While answering point Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 936/08 in the affirmative in favour of the Construction Company Limited we have already held that there is no violation of the terms and conditions enumerated in the Conversion Order in not getting the lay out plan approved from the B.D.A. under the provisions of Section 32 of the BDA Act by recording the reasons and further we have already answered the point Nos. 4 and 5 and point No. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4100/08 against the petitioner who has filed public interest litigation petitions and in favour of the Construction Co., Further, there is a consent is obtained by the Construction Co., for discharge of effluent from the Building by the Construction Company Limited from the Pollution Control Board invoking its right of review under Section 27(2)(b) of the Water Act and no doubt as on the date of commencement of the construction of the building there is no C.F.E. Certificate obtained from the Pollution Control Board that by itself does not render the construction of the Building in the plot is illegal. Further he has submitted that the Construction Co., will undertake to construct the sewage treatment plant in the plot in question with a view to see that the discharge of sewage is properly treated in the plant and there shall not be any water or Air Pollution as alleged in the PIL writ petitions and cause public injury to either the occupants or the other residents of the surrounding vicinity. His submission to placed on record and Pollution Control Board must see that the Construction Company shall get implemented its undertaking given to the Court.

54. For the reasons stated supra, we have held that construction of the building is not illegal and we have already held that construction of the building upon the plot in question is not in violation of either the Zonal Regulations or Building Bye Laws.

55. Point Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 18904/2006 are answered against the petitioner for the following reasons.

We had been proposed to consider the legal submissions made where the provisions of Water Act or Environment Protection Act 1986 and Notification issued in Sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act adding Entry No. 31 to the schedule 1 of the Notification dated 07.07.2004 for the reasons that the petitioner in this case has already obtained consent for construction to discharge effluent of sewage from the building and the same is not interfered with though petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation writ petition has prayed to quash the order dated 12.03.2007 granting consent for discharge of sewage by the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board in exercise of its review power under Section 27(2)(b) of the Water Act and the same is found by us by recording the reasons while answering point Nos. 1 to 4 framed in the said Writ Petition No. 1400/08 against the petitioner and in favour of the construction Company by recording our reasons after considering the rival legal contentions rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner after satisfying on perusal of record and we have already held that the consent order for discharge of effluence from the building of the construction Company, cannot be quashed. Therefore we need not examine claim of the construction Company that inaction on the part of Karnataka Pollution Control Board after receipt of application filed in Form No. 1 and Form No. 13 on the basis of acknowledgements 1275 and 1276 dated 13.06.2006 no action was taken within the stipulated period of limitation within four months after making of application under Section 25(7) of the Act not required to be examined and answered as we are affirming the order of confirmation for construction of discharge of effluence granting in favour of the construction company limited. Therefore point No. 1 and 2 are not required to be answered. Accordingly we answer the point Nos. 1 & 2 against the petitioner/Construction Company, as we are of the view that there is no need for granting the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition No. 18904/06. Accordingly the petition is disposed off by answering point No. 3 also as the same is wholly unnecessary.

Point No. 1 of Contempt Petition:

56. The said point is required to be answered against the petitioner for the following reasons.

After perusal of the complaint allegations and statement of counter and further vacating the interim order passed by this Court on satisfying the statement of facts stated in the application seeking for vacating the interim order in construction of the building is in confirmity with the sanctioned plan and the licence in our considered view, the allegations are reminder allegations. The petitioner has failed to show that there is willful disobedience of the interim order dated 01.04.2008 are alleged in the complaint to take action against the construction company limited for civil contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Rules framed thereunder. We are satisfied that there is neither disobedience nor willful disobedience of the Construction Company contemnor is shown to us from the record produced by the complainant or upon the allegations made by him which are substantiated by him producing cogent material evidence on record in the above referred civil contempt case. Therefore we answer the point against the complainant and in favour of the respondent Construction Company. For the reasons stated supra of the Writ Petition Nos. 936/2006 & 4100/2008 are hereby dismissed as the same are devoid of merit but without costs. Since the above writ petitions of Public Interest Litigant are dismissed. The writ petition No. 18904/06 is disposed off as the same is wholly unnecessary. We reject the contempt petition.