-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 25"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2009"
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF 3.u5E'f1f€i§"' -
AND
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN V;EfH:g'NT'A6eAc;O'ubV.éTEYR."*:;_A
WRIT PETITION NO.30947'/2Y0.Q9V"('G'I$/1--RE'S'¥79§L=.3V
§..E--_IWE§JN;
G.R.¥ViOHA¥\.F
AGED 54 YEARS '
ADVOCATE BY PROFEss10--N £-
NO.328,. 1-" 'N' BL.QC.K
19"' 'E' MAIN ROAD '
RAJAEINAGAii1,.ABA--NG.i\l;O'i2-$1'S»:$4O»Q 10; R
(BY RARTY-:s\2T--PER§;OT\I T -
...... ..
1. TH E §f:f.xi;'TYE:ffO.T% '}\5}~§Rf\i.ATAKA
VIDHAN-A SOL¥E3.H/%.
"'BANGA»!_7ORE- Sea 001
R-ER. RY';Tzs=.§:H1EE SECRETARY
ER:\T.ORLORE METRO RAIL
'ۤ)'R}3~OR_A';T1ON LTD.
35.9 F-LOOR, BMTC COMPLEX
-'1:<;R.RR§OAD, BANGALORE 560 027
RER; BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
HPETETIONER
%~.J
3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE TRAFFIC
BANGALORE CITY TRAFFIC
INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001.
..REsPO_N _
(BY SR1: ASHOK HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE GENER*AL.:Af,\IV"~;:S:R«IV DC'
VEERAPPA, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR~'""'R'1. :& ,.R'3;_ ER:
R.N.NARASIMHA NURTRY, sR.ADvOCATE':.;:OR.R:.) --
THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILED' UNDER.ARTICL..E'S',_22€» AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING T'O_D,IRECT'TRE
RESRONDENTS TO DESIST FROM"=..CA_RRYII\E*GA ' OUT THE
UNDERGROUND METRO PROJECT wOIRT<«.I_;N FRONT OFATTVHE HIGH
COURT AND VIDHANA SOU._DfHA--_ AiND'~.._T.o"aCONCEIVE AN
ALTERNATE ROUTE IN A SCIENI'II='IC'M.ANN_ER.jIN"THE INTEREST
OF PUBLIC AT LARGE. ..
THIS wR_I__T_ "P!§IT1'"I.l:QVVNC._'COVT§EI'FJSCVVVV_L.IP FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING ON THTI.SV5._DAVY,"THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWINGI9'; I I
"gA.£ DGMENT
' (?I3'eli"v,.ered"Cb'§["¥5.D.DinakaTan, C.J.)
teamed Counsel appearing for
__fE?7!.€if D§3titEO"fleJ:,'«:_ Mr.AshOk Haranahalli, Eeameé Advocate
with Sri B \/eerappa, teamed Government
for re-sDOndents--I and 3 and Mr.R.N.E\iarasimha
Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
2.1. Concedediy, the Division aehch of this
detailed order dated 13″‘ August 2001 in it “=
vs. State of Karnataka and others :'{_report’edr».i_.n’-.i’LP{‘”2’@.Q’i:::_:é
irVA_fi*!.et.ro~.Project Work in front of the High Court
.”‘V._and \/iCi*ha’n’a and to conceive an alternate route in a
_V:sci4e’riVtific n’1ah’ri_e.r’in the interest of public at large.
3. Mr. Ashok Haranahalll, learned Advocate General
appearing for first and third respondents submits tha’t””«the
route plan for laying the metro rail had already
approved by the Government based on the eXlQ»é_f:tsVop§nio»n”
which includes the impugned route
soudha and High Court both being..__.heritla_g’e
learned Advocate General also that
due care has already ecology and
environmental conditions sa’t’rs:lyi::ng:’ Karnataka
Government Pa
4. Accd-rgdling’ Murthy, learned
Senior Counseluxa’pp_earing’~–.fl\or’u”‘l2″d respondent to whom the
ll”5″lVjVUQ.ned’:l.j’3″:’ worlq hAa’s’l”””‘b’een duly entrusted by the
Gove’i-rnnilentyf’»..i_tney_:_i.~ have also taken due care in
v,::i?n’plen”ren~t_i’ngVg.the.l’.§rnpugned project.
V’ It”~l.s the case of the respondents as a whole, that
t’he_y”.’haGve taken the larger public interest into consideration
_(}_
and also taken note of the traffic congestion, the present
and future, in the City.
6. We have given our careful consideratio,n__”-to~,,t~he~«3
submissions of ali the parties. l
7.1. It is settied principle that
decisions, it may not be propenfor th’i–s_’Court,V.tt:.linterfjelre
with the decision taken by the eitercising
power conferred under Art,i.f§fj%i–e_ ;–i2E§’.A,of..__tih’e.,Constitution of
India. In Federation of _R;–if_f:wé–yj :i.O?fice:rs’w”/lssociation
and otherslvs. {(2003) 4 scc 289], the
Supreme Courthlais
V “?.2._§i’ra” e.xaini’n.in’gV”a guestion of this nature where
zQ’VOlVéd”bY the government, judicial
reviei».r “is limited, When policy according to
whi.c”n orfthe purpose for which discretion is to be
g exericisevda is clearly expressed in the statute, it
cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On
_l”na*tte’rs affecting policy and requiring technical
K.”‘*~«”.j_’e;<fpertise, the Court wouid leave the matter for
decision of those who are qualified to address the
issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent.»
with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary:or'f"y:«.V:"*..y
irrational or abuse of power, the Court
interfere with such matters."
7.3. That apart, the Apex Court’il.in7′.’_th’e
Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of of“DeihViy(:2’i2O’6′)’V210 i A
SCC 337 has held thus :,
“:11, ‘*5. While exercising ._th’fe’Vgfiowehrv«i.of__’_judiciaE
review of adnjiiniistfratii;\_/e iac]tio.n}’*vi’tjhe”court is not
the Ap pel *a_naT’ :t_i’ie_ » Constitution
does not .t:r§iie–co–:;ir*t’toédiir-ect or advise the
executiVe’~ “C of policy or to
sermonisieg_’q*ua which under the
Constitutyionéiw V-iiieis’ wiivthizn the sphere of the
‘JV.”ileg1’s—lhature “or the “” “executive, provided these
ido:’not transgress their constitutional
lin*ii.t’s’oi4 powers’. (See Asif Hameed v.
Q CA State §)l”‘7V:«].8<'K;, scc p. 3724, para :9, Sim' Sitaram
:_"'Si1gar.Co'; Ltd. v. Union of India)
it j'"ifl'ie_ scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the
question whether the decision taken by the
-9-
decision of the Government the court cannot
interfere even if a second view is possible from;'”–._
that of the Government.”
7.4. That apart, it is also well settled
should refrain itself from interfering i-ni..:’ca’rse-.o’f °pL:.t;l”iti_i_r
contracts and which has got dire_ct._beariv.ng oni”.:cornm.ercial » L’
transactions and which affects th_e.flec_on_om.v State.
The Apex court in the case”of–iTa_tér}C;éi1u[a»rVv. Union of
India, (1994) 6 scc:i551 3.’has}iieirdistijus
“’70. it den}-eidi.._t’t.–aVt’–.p:the principles of
judiciai ajvrevviem-il.5′,’..woti.lVd -.;a’p.piy_ to the exercise of
contracttiaél ‘p.owe.rs”.t5’y<erci*s€e o'f* that powerliof judicial review. Government
.V'i'.s_' the finances of the State. It is
V eirpeictedv'toll-'protect the financial interest of the State.
T The r'i'ght–.fto "refuse the lowest or any other tender is
z"j"«.__al'wAavs .'aV_vailable to the Government. But, the
pl.rincilp"i~es iaid down in Article 3.4 of the Constitution
-fhahvelto be kept in view while accepting or refusing a
.’_4’tein’der. There can be no question of infringement of
it :” 5′ .
Xy”W:,_.
aimww
_ ii _
9. However, the petitioner having shown concern
basing his submissions on the decision of this Court made
in the case of G.K.Govmda Rao, referred to above_,…vve’_:’e.Vre
obiiged to give due consideration to the eariier .
of the Division bench of this Court
accord our permission to the im:p’isiVgnf_ed’V
liberty to the petitioner to so ” it
desires to the first respondent from the
date of receipt of a «end reposing
confidence in the:..S’tat’e to tefée isticn suggestions
aiso into considereti«’on…_
The writ petiitivon of, accordingty.
Sd/ -1* _
Chief Etlfime
Sdfé
EUDGE
V — V .o Yesfmo
Host: Yes/No