PURUSHOTHAM versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 02-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 818 
PURUSHOTHAM 
v. 
STATE OF 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. 107 48, 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 
. 
KARNATAKA
PURUSHOl=HAM v. STATE OF KERALA 
819 
the Respondents. 
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 
A 
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. 107 49 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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
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 
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 Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.