Scam Slam: Karnataka High Court Dismisses BJP's TDR PIL, Accuses BBMP of Collusion

Bengaluru, India — In a judgment that has left many in the city reeling, the Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) councilor NR Ramesh. The petition alleged corruption in the allocation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) at undervalued rates for land in Kodiyala Karenahalli, purportedly to establish a garbage plant. The court also criticized the BBMP for possible collusion with the petitioner.

Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind were hearing the case. They went to the extent of raising a question over the very validity of the PIL itself, because the State had granted its order permitting the TDRs way back in 2013. The Bench said the petition had no merit when it held, "The court cannot entertain a PIL after more than a decade especially when it does not contain substantial grounds.".

This would necessarily suspect the hands of BBMP in this process. When there would appear apparently contradictory submissions on part of municipal authority's counsel against stand of the State, suspicion naturally tends to raise against possibility of conspiracy between the BBMP and the petitioner.

Disposed the PIL, and it directs to pay a cost of ₹ 10,000 on Karnataka Legal Services Authority (KLSA) against the petition by way of deposit. The petitioner alleged that the State had breached rules relating to the distribution of TDRs, which caused financial losses and misutilization of taxpayers' money. He deposed that there was valuable exchange of TDRs in exchange for lands located miles away from Bengaluru contrary to existing law. Besides this, the petitioner also alleged that the former Advocate General had cautioned against such practices.

In response, the State represented by another Additional Advocate General submitted that the petition was politically motivated as Ramesh did not raise this over the Head's period as a councilor of BBMP. Counsel for BBMP argued further that allowing TDR for lands within the limits of BBMP might potentially lead to nuisances in the city of Bengaluru as what is provided over here is more than 40 acres.

Positing the argument that the BBMP's counsel was challenging the contradictory nature of the submissions, the Chief Justice went on to question why such elaborate arguments were not combined with a clear stand. "Why are you arguing? Your stand is contrary to the government's stance and the 2013 circular, isn't it?".

This counsel of the BBMP rebutted by stating that the government order of 2013 was valid and submitted that the BBMP never disputed this order. The court interpreted these contradictory submissions of the BBMP as a probable case of collusive misuse of the PIL mechanism. "The conduct and stand taken by BBMP in appearing without notice and proceeding to make elaborate submissions was incomprehensible," the court observed.

The High Court dismissed the PIL through its final order citing non-timely and non-substantive reasons for filing the petition. The judgment by the Bench indicates that the judiciary frowns upon delayed and politically motivated litigations without any solid evidence.

This judgment brings forth present day concerns regarding transparent provision of developmental rights and abuse in municipalities. The government will observe how the authorities implement TDR laws and ensure the role of governance takes place in urban development.

Also read: Video Straits Tour Turns Deadly: How a False Stock Tip Cashed out Rs 76.5 Lakh