The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to demolish the Hospital Building , situated at Jayanagar, Bangalore by following the prescribed procedures under The BRUHAT Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act , 2020.
The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the subject building has been erected without any building plan and that a multi speciality hospital is being run therein without the licences/permissions that are mandatory under the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007.
He further submits that the requisite information which his client has obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 has been produced by way of annexures and that the same demonstrates the petition averments and therefore, the subject building is liable to be demolished and the licence granted under the KPME Act, 2007 needs to be rescinded. However, despite representations, the counsel submits, the respondent – authorities have not done anything and therefore, his client is knocking at the doors of the Court.
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the state respondent pointed out from the petition averments and the documents produced by the petitioner as annexures, that the said building has been there since years and the petition is now presented after brooking enormous delay, sans any explanation therefor. She also draws attention of the Court to the licence granted by the jurisdictional authority under the KPME Act, 2007. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the AGA appearing for the respondents , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the version of the AGA is demonstrated from the documents produced by the petitioner himself. In his representation dated 24.08.2023 addressed to the respondents herein, a copy whereof that petitioner at para 2 has specifically stated “It is submitted that the above multi speciality hospital has been operating for many years without any legal sanctions. … ”
From the very photograph of the building produced by the Petitioner , the Bench noted that a full fledged hospital is being run in the subject building ‘
Petitioner has also produced a copy of the Certificate of Registration dated 12.05.2021 issued by the jurisdictional authority under the provisions of KPME Act, 2007. The said Certificate is valid till 11th May 2026. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the hospital is being run without any registration certificate is prima facie untrue, going by the documents which he himself has placed on record.
After perusing the petition papers and the documents accompanying the same, the Bench observed that petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru City and more particularly, the Old Madras Road which is nearby Jayanagar wherein, the building in question exists. It is not his case that he was not aware of such a huge building coming up years ago and that he has come to know of the same only now. He had filed the RTI application only in the recent past i.e 05.06.2023 and obtained certain information which again is insufficient for answering the queries that we had posed to his counsel. The petition is filed in the Court on 12.10.2023, i.e. long after the building has come up and the hospital came to be established with the licence duly granted. The petitioner thus, has woken up from a deep slumber like Rip Van Winkle one fine morning and has rushed to the Court. There is absolutely no explanation for the long delay brooked in the matter. Nothing has been stated as to what he as doing all these years when such a huge building was in the construction process. It has been a settled position that law comes to the rescue of those who are vigilant and not tardy and sleepy. The counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to certain representations made to the respondent – Authorities, in the recent past. Here again, delay has not been explained in presenting such representations.
The Bench was not inclined to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent should be directed to consider the same expeditiously. It is for the Authorities to take a call on these representations in accordance with law.