The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with a prayers to quash a report dated 02.12.2020 of the Karnataka Lokayukta in so far as it relates to re-consideration of the applications for allotment of sites of the applicants whose allotments have been held to be illegal in Atal Bihari Vajpayee Layout, Shivamogga.
The PIL filed by one D. Raju further prayed to quash the Government Order dated 30.07.2021 in so far as it relates to rejecting the recommendations of Karnataka Lokayukta (respondent no.3).
It is further prayed for direction for re-allotment of sites after considering the applications made for allotment in respect of sites available after excluding sites which are legally allotted, and to initiate disciplinary action against private respondents.
Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging illegal allotment of sites in Atal Bihari Vajpayee Layout, Shivamogga, by Development Authority (respondent no.40). Pursuant to a reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, respondent no.3 has submitted a report on 02.12.2020 holding that out of 1,305 allotments, only 498 allotments were legal and the remaining 807 allotments were illegal, and respondent no.3 had further observed in its report that the applications of the allottees whose allotment was illegal would be re-considered for allotment of sites, if they submit necessary documents for curing the illegalities. Respondent no.3 had also recommended initiating disciplinary action against private respondents.
The State Government, vide its order dated 30.07.2021, has accepted the report of respondent no.3 in so far as it relates to the recommendation relating to re-consideration of applications for allotment of sites, but rejected the recommendation for taking disciplinary action against respondents 5 to 17. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the petition.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty while considering the PIL observed that though learned Senior Counsel has contended that respondent no.3 was not justified in recommending for re-consideration of the applications of the allottees whose allotment was, held to be illegal, he has failed to point out the public interest in quashing the report in so far as it relates to directing re-consideration of the applications of the allottees whose allotment was held illegal.
Respondent no.3 in its report has observed that the applications of such of the allottees whose allotment was held to be illegal could be re-considered in case they furnish necessary documents to cure the illegalities. The petitioner cannot have any grievance against the same. If at all anybody who can have grievance against such an observation made by respondent no.3, it would be the other allottees of sites in the layout or the other applicants who have failed to get allotment in their favour, held the Court.
Further, the Court observed that it is not the case of the petitioner that the other allottees or the other applicants who have failed to get allotment, are not in a position to approach the High Court, and therefore, this petition is filed in the interest of the public.
Further, the State Government based on the report of the Advocate General has rejected the report of the Lokayukta in so far as it relates to taking disciplinary action against private respondents. Senior Counsel has failed to point out any illegality in the said decision taken by
the State Government which is based on the report of the Advocate General of the State.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds no merit in the petition which is filed in the interest of the public. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.