PURUSHOTHAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

                        [2015] 12 S.C.R. 818



A                         PURUSHOTHAM
                                  v.
                    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             KERALA & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 10747of2013 etc.)
B                      DECEMBER 02, 2015
    [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN,JJ.]
        Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -
  ss.2(bb)(vi) and 38A - Allotment of a particular site by the
C Development Authority for the use of petrol retail outlet -
  Allotment challenged - High Court set aside the allotment
  011 the ground that the site was not allotted for the purpose for
  which it was earmarked viz. for a 'Bank' and hence was in
  violation of s. 38A - On appeal, Supreme Court by judgment
  dated 29. 11. 2013 upheld the order of High Court- In review
D petition it was brought to the notice of the Court that the site
  was not earmarked for a 'Bank' but for 'civil amenities', the
  Court recalled its order dated 29.11. 2013 - Held: From the
  Layout Plan it is evident that the plot in question was not
  earmarked for any specific purpose - Therefore it was well
  within the jurisdiction of the Development Authority to allot
E that plot for the purpose of any civic amenity and the 'petrol
  pump' is a civil amenity u/s.2(bb)(vi) r!w. Notification dated
  29.08.1990
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10747 of 2013
F         From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the
    Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
    in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 (BDA-PIL)
         C. A. Nos. 10748, 10749 and 10750 of 2013
       Mukul Rohatgi,AG, Mohan Prasaran, Sr.Adv., Ranjeet
G Singh, Dr. Sushil Balwada, K. Raghvacharyulu, Kailash
  Pandey, Arindam Dey, Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan,
  Advs. with him, fortheAppellant.
         S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni,
    Shanth Kumar V. Mahale, Amith J., Rajesh Mahale, Rajeev
H   Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Ms.Anitha Shenoy,Advs;, for
                                818            .
         PURUSHOl=HAM v. STATE OF KERALA                      819


the Respondents.                                              A
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      KURIAN, J.. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the
common judgment dated 05.09.2011 in Writ Petition No.
5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition Nd. 5173 of 2006 on the file
of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court B
took the view that Civic Amenity Site No. 2 has to be utilised
only for the purpose for which it was earmarked, viz., for a
Bank and, hence, the allotment of the same by the Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BOA') to
be used as a petrol retail outlet was set aside beif1g in C
violation of Section 38A of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The
respondents in the writ petitions, aggrieved, pursued the
matter before this Court.
      2. The appeals were initially dismissed by judgment
in 'Purushottam v. State of Karnataka' dated 29.11.2013 D
reported in 2014(3)SCC 721. Having noticed that there were
factual mistakes in the judgment of the High Court which
was upheld by this Court, by a detailed order dated
10.09.2015, the review petitions were allowed and the
judgment referred 'to above was recalled.                       E
         For the purpose ofready reference we shall reproduce ·
     the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2015 as such:
    Delay in filing Review Petition No. 532 of 2014 is
    condoned.
        These review petitions are preferred seeking review F
    of our judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed in Civil Appeal
    No. 10747 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2013, ·
    Civil Appeal No. 10749 and Civil Appeal No. 10750 of
    2013.
        The aforesaid appeals were filed impugning the
    judgment of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ G
    Petition No. 5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5173 of
    2006. Those writ petitions were filed by way of Public
    Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of
    India challenging the allotment of civic amenity site No. 2
    to Bharat Petroleum Corporation for establishment of a H
820      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A      petrol pump and seeking a declaration that the said
       allotment be declared null and void.
            During the course of hearing, on the basis of a
       document, it was noticed that though this site was initially
       earmarked for a 'Park', thereafter, the user was changed
B      to that for a 'Bank'. On the aforesaid premise that the
       site was earmarked for a 'Bank', the Court proceeded
       to decide as to whether it could be allotted for a petrol
       pump and answered the said question in the negative.
       On that basis, writ petitions were allowed and the allotment
       made in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
c     ·was set aside.
            We may notice here that, in the meantime, Bharat
       Petroleum Corporation Limited had allotted this site
       to Smt. Ramadevi for establishment of petrol pump.
       Smt. Ramadevi and her husband Shri Purushottam
D      were, accordingly, also arrayed as respondents in those
       writ petitions. Two Appeals were filed by Bharat Petroleum
       Corporation Limited and appeals were also filed by Smt.
       Ramadevi and Shri Purushottam.
            These appeals, as mentioned above, were decided
       by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013 (which is
E
       under review) accepting the reasons given by the High
       Court resulting into the dismissal of the said appeals. In
       these three review petitions, which are again preferred
       by Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Smt. Ramadevi and
       Shri Purushottam, it is sought to be argued that the High
F      Court was misled and the site in question was not
       earmarked for 'Bank' at all. Certain documents are
       produced in support of this submission that the site was,
       in fact, earmarked for civic amenities and it is sought to
       be shown that civil amenities include petrol pump. The
       documents which are produced have been obtained
G      from the Bangalore Development Authority under the
       Rig ht to Information Act.
            Since these are official documents, their genuineness,
       prima facie, cannot be doubted. Further, it would be in
       the interest of justice that implication/effect of these
H      documents is considered. For these reasons, the
  PURUSHOTHAM v. STATE OF KERALA [KURIAN, J.]                     821


    judgment dated 29.11.2013 requires to be recalled and A
    the matter needs to be examined afresh in the light of these
    documents. These review petitions are, accordingly,
    allowed recalling the judgment dated 29.11.2013 and
    the appeals are restored to their original numbers, viz.,
    CivilAppeal No. 10747 of2013, CivilAppeal Nos. 10749- B
    10750 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 10748 of2013.
    We may mention that we had started hearing, with the
    consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals
    afresh on merits as well. However, after some arguments,
    learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to
    14 requests for some time in order to verify these             C
    documents.
    At request, liberty is granted to Bharat Petroleum
    Corporation Limited to file additional affidavit within two
    weeks.
       Reply thereto, shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 4 to       D
    14 within two weeks thereafter.
    The civil appeals shall be listed after four weeks.
    Interim orders to continue, in the meantime."
     Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel
appearing forthe respondents, apparently having gone through       E
the documents, submits that the appellants have already
submitted documents referred to in the Review Petitions
before the High Court and have sought for a review before
the High Court itself and, hence, the matter be remanded to
the High Court.                                                    F
      Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing
for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and learned senior
counsel appearing for other appellants submit that since the
errors are apparent on the face of the record and which
have been noted from the records already available before
this Court itself atthe time of hearing of the review petition, the G
matter needs to be given a quietus before this Court particularly
in view of the judgment rendered by this Court.
      Be that as it may, grievance essentially pertains to
the dispute as to whether the site No. 2 earmarked for civic
                                                                   H
822         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A      amenity in a Modified Layout Plan of Scheme between Hennur
       Road and Sana Swadi Road, Bangalore, is for a Bank or
       any other civic amenity.
              The Modified Layout Plan was available before the High
       Court as produced by the BOA along with their statement and
 8     marked as Annexure R2. In any case, the learned counsel
       for BOA submits that the Layout Plan produced asAnnexure
       R4 with a covering letter dated 21 12.2013 in the Review
       Petition is the authenticated copy of the Plan and it is not
       disputed also.
              Our attention has been invited to the Layout Plan and it
 c     is seen that in Plot No. 19 [CA2] there is no earmarked
       purpose whereas it is plot No. 20 that is earmarked to be
       used as Bank and plot No. 21 for P&T. Therefore, the whole
       basis of the contention of the writ petitioners before the High
       Court is totally shaken and the same is wholly misconceived
 o     on facts. The petrol outlet is in Plot No. 19.
              Once it is seen that against the disputed plot No. 19,
       no purpose as such is shown, the BDA is well within jurisdiction
       to allot it for any civic amenity. There is no dispute that petrol
       pump is a civic arJ)enity coming under the definition of civic
       amenity in Section. 2(bb)(vi) of the Act read with the
 E     Notification dated 29.08.1990. Under Section 38A of the
       Act, the only restriction cast upon the Authority is that it shall
      .not sell or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for public
       parks and playgrounds and civic amenities, for any other
        purpose and if so made, such disposition would be null and
 F     void.
              Once it is seen from the Notification dated 29.08.1990
       that petrol pump is a civic amenity duly notified in terms of
        Section 2(bb) of the Act, nothing prevents the Authority from
       allotting it for being used as a notified civic amenity. Therefore,
 G      it has become unnecessary to consider any other point.
              In that view of the ma~er, there is no merit in the writ
        petitions filed before the High Court. They are, accordingly,
        dismissed. The civil appeals are allowed as above.
               No costs.
 H    Kalpana K. Tripathy                                  Appeals allowed.