As many as 14 officers of the Urban Development Department (UDD) are found to be responsible for causing unnecessary delay of 22 months in consideration of a proposal received from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to amend law related to renewal of licences.
These aspects were revealed in an inquiry conducted by Chief Secretary T.M. Vijay Bhaskar after the High Court of Karnataka questioned why action was initiated only against two section officers for keeping the file related to the BBMP’s proposal under wraps for a year.
In his affidavit filed before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice R. Devdas, the Chief Secretary pointed out that the proposal received from the BBMP on August 8, 2016 had remained with the UDD till July 4, 2018.
The Chief Secretary’s affidavit points out that the file remained pending not for only one year but for 22 months, and not just two officers, but 14 officials were responsible for the pendency.
Three under secretaries, a deputy secretary, a section officer, and a senior assistant in the BBMP Section; and four under secretaries, two section officers, a deputy director, and a senior assistant in the Corporation Section-2 were the officers found to be negligent in supervision and dereliction of duty.
“The inaction, inadequate supervision, and the delay caused by these officials have been noted and disciplinary action will be initiated against them,” the Chief Secretary stated in the affidavit.
Now, SMSs are being sent to department heads such as additional chief secretaries, principal secretaries, and secretaries when letters are not moved in seven days and files are not moved in 15 days, the Chief Secretary stated.
The court had questioned how the government kept mum on the BBMP’s proposal for deleting or amending Section 443(10) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, which relates to deemed grant of licence in cases where municipal corporations does not communicate orders within 45 days on the applications for renewal of licences or registration or permission. The BBMP, during the hearing of a PIL petition related to advertisement bylaws, had claimed that a large number of advertising hoardings on private properties were continuing claiming benefit under this law.
