The High Court of Karnataka on Monday ordered issue of notice to the State government on a PIL petition questioning the government’s proposal to construct a seven-storied annexe building for the High Court by demolishing an old building, which is surrounded by Cubbon Park and had housed the office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka earlier.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur passed the order on the petition filed by the Cubbon Park Walkers’ Association.
However, the Bench told the advocate for the petitioner that the association has to choose either legal proceedings or the path of agitation to challenge the proposed construction.
While making it clear that the court is not stopping them from holding agitations, the Bench said they cannot pursue both methods, agitation and legal proceedings. The Bench also pointed out that the association has not named the High Court, which is a necessary party to the proceeding, as a respondent in the petition.
The association is only creating public opinion while claiming that the authorities have not provided with a copy of the government’s September 23, 2019 order permitting construction of seven-storied building with total constructed area of 4,954 sq. m and two basement and seven upper floors, which has a height of 3.6 metres.
In its petition, the association has argued that the location of the proposed constructions falls “within the Cubbon Park area”, which is a “heritage” place required to be protected. Contending that the decision to put up the seven-storied building was contrary to the 2001 judgment of the High Court as permission from a single judge was obtained instead of a Division Bench, the petition also claimed that the proposed construction is contrary to a direction of the Supreme Court, which prohibited constructions contrary to sanctioned layout scheme/zoning regulations.
The Bench adjourned further hearing while directing the government to provide a copy of the September 23 order to the petitioner’s advocate, while asking him to include the High Court as a respondent.
