BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST versus B.S. MUDDAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 19-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST 
v. 
B.S. MUDDAPPA AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 1991 
[T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Town Planning. 
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Sections 2(b), 
2(bb), 15, 16( l)(d), 17, 19(4), 38, 38A and 65-Approved Scheme for 
development of the City-Space reserved for public park-Diversion 
C 
and allotment to a private Trust for construction of hospital-Whether 
valid-Exercise of power to alter the Scheme-Whether valid-Power 
of the Government to issue directions to the statutory authority regard-
ing the user of the site and allotment to a private body-Whether unres-
tricted-Whether statutory authority bound by Government's directions. 
D 
Constitution of India, I950: Articles 32, 226---Pub/ic Interest 
Litigation-Object and scope of-Space reserved for public park-
Diversion for construction of a hospital and allotment to a private 
body-Whether residents of locality have locus standi to challenge the 
action of the authorities. 
E 
Administrative Law-Administrative action-Discretion shquld be 
exercised objectively and rationally, when affecting public interest-
Authority not to act whimsically or arbitrarily. 
A site in the city of Bangalore was reserved as an open space in an 
improvement scheme adopted under the City of Bangalore Improve-
F 
ment Act, 1945. This Act was replaced hy the Bangalore Development 
Authority Act, 1976 and the scheme prepared m1der the repealed enact-
ment was deemed to have been prepared and duly sanctioned by the 
Government in terms of the new Act. In the scheme, the open space in 
question had been reserved for a public park. However, pursuant to the 
orders of the State Government, and by a Resolution, the Bangalore 
G 
Development Authority allotted the open space in favour of the appel-
lant, a private medical Trust, for the purpose of constructing a hospital. 
This allotment and diversion of the user of the site was challenged 
before the High Court by the respondents, as residents of the locality 
and as general public, contending that it was contrary to the provisions 
of the Act and the scheme sanctioned thereunder, and the legislative 
H 
intent to protect and preserve the environment by reserving open space 
102 
MEDICAL TRUST v. B.S. MUDDAPPA 
103 
for ventilation, recreation and play grounds and parks for the general 
A 
public. 
A Single Judge of the ,High Court dismissed the Writ Petition 
holding that a hospital being a civic amenity, the allotment of the site by 
the BDA in favour of the appellant for the purpose of constructing a 
hospital was valid and in accordance with law, and, rejected the claim 
B 
of the petitioners that the BDA had no power to alter the scheme, and in 
any event, a site reserved for a civic amenity could not have been 
allotted for construction of a hospital, on the ground that the scheme 
could be altered under Section 19(4) of the Act, and it was done with 
-, 
approval of State Govt. 
' 
On appeal, the Division Bench held that though the BDA had the 
authority to deal with the plot in question, the area, having been 
reserved in the sanctioned scheme for a public park, its diversion from 
that object and allotment in favour of a private body was not permissi-
c 
ble under the Act, even if the object of the allotment was the construc-
tion of a hospital, since a hospital could not be considered to be an D 
amenity in 1976, and that in alloting the site to the appellant-Trust, 
largesse was conferred on it in utter violation of law and rules, and set 
aside the allotment of the site in question to the appellant with liberty to 
the BDA to make a fresh allotment of any alternative site in favour of 
the appellant. 
In appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant-trust, it 
was contended that the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction in set-
ting aside an allotment which was purely an administrative action by 
the BDA pursuant to a valid direction by the Government in that 
behalf, that in the absence of any evidence of mala fide the decision of 
E 
the BDA was not liable to be interfered with, that the decision to allot a 
F 
site for a hospital rather than a park was a matter within the discretion 
of the BDA and that the hospital being not only an amenity hut also a 
civic amenity under the Act, as amended from time to time, the diver-
sion of the user of the land for that purpose was justified, that under 
Section 65 the BDA was bound by all directions of the Government, 
irrespective of the nature o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.