9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application I.A. No. II placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 (4) KCCR 2698 at paragraph 2. 3. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance upon the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short Rules, 1991 ) and Rule 7(1) of the Rules has contended that the above said Rules have been blatantly violated by the respondents 1 and 2 at the time of passing the impugned allotment order; since the said ground goes to the root of the matter and falls within the ground enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is one of the grounds for reviewing the impugned order and as such the learned Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(1) of Clauses (a) to (f) and also Rule 7(2); that the provisions of Section 39 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, which would clearly state that the 2nd respondent shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for public parks and playgrounds and Civic Amenities, for any other purpose and any disposition so made shall be null and void and Rule 3(3) provides that due publicity shall be given in respect of Civic Amenity sites so offered for leasing to the Institutions, specifying their location, number, dimension, purpose and last date for submission of application and such other particulars as the Commissioner may consider necessary, by affixing a notice on the notice board of the office of the authority and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and recommended for allotment of civic amenity site in question in favour of the 3rd respondent without following the principles enumerated under Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 7(1) of the Rules for the purpose of allotting the civic amenity site. Therefore, there is blatant violation of the above said Statutory Rules by the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned resolution at Annexure-F which resolution has been approved by the first respondent though, it is not necessary under law. The Supreme Court in the case reported in BABU VERGHESE AND ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA AND ORS. [1999] 1 SCR 1121 after considering the Privy Council Judgment in NAZIR AHMAD v. KING EMPEROR and its earlier judgments rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the action of passing the resolution by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the statutory and mandatory duty by it as held by the Supreme Court in the case referred to supra. Further, the 2nd respondent has not complied with Rule 7(1) in not examining the claim of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent keeping in view the guiding principles enumerated under Clauses (a) to (f) of the above said Rule. This is also one more error which has crept in, in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent which important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the first respondent at the time of approving the resolution of the 2nd respondent. Though, non-compliance of Rules 3(3) and 7(1) of the Rules was not urged in the Writ P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
