Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010

‘ A (BTSRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

I 2. THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

It I.5F,__I’TI’HEi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN

IIf’-FORYOCONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH SUB~DI\fISION REGULATIONS NO.6.1(A) FRAMED UNDER
REVISED MASTER PLAN 2015, CLAUSE 7.4 OF PART III OF BUILDING
BYE LAWS OF BMP 2003 & RULE 80 OF ELECTRICITY RULES 1956 AND
ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG. IN ‘B’

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

QBDER

The petitioner’s grievance is that the’:.res’_poIiiden_ts~ h’ave:’iI.ot’I1.i_’

approved of the building plan submitte_d~.,by the petitio,h’駒_»,,…,.

2. Sri R.Prasanna, the.{earnedT’Tco’u–:n,segli’~for the”‘p’etitioner
submits that none of the grounds’E-entlirnlelrated~IAi.n,TSection 303 of

the Karnataka Munici’p’a’i*«,1.g,Corporation refusing the

approval or p:.ermissio’n tVo:Z?.,c0nsi:ruct_ the building are present in
this case. He brings to ‘m?y.n’oti’ce,” the provisions contained in

the said Section, which reads.”-asvfollows:

“3o3._,i ;c;roun..+is.,’§Vfi~–,__whIch approval or site for, or
|.’)8I”I’I’|iS_SiQI.1 tc:_i:orIs1:Ifu_’;:t building, may be refused.- (1)

l_”gThe only g_rourids.__O~n” which approval of a site for the

7_’co’nstrIIction or reco-nstruction of a building or permission to
{construct or reconstruct a buiiding may be refused, are the
_ _f’Ol_lOwing, nameiyg,~

, ff:-T) I “that the work or the use of the site for the work or

” _ any-»oft’the particulars comprised in the site pian, ground

‘ pien, eievations, sections, or specification wouid
“contravene some specified provision of any {aw or some

fiS!-L

specified order, ruie, declaration or bye–iaw made under
any iaw;

(b) that the appiication for such permission does
contain the pariricuiars or is not prepared in the man_neir=,_
required under ruies or bye-Eaws; W ” ‘

(c) that any of the documents referred to in’:$’ecti’o.nVt’
299 have not been signed as required under |’.5.JiVeS”QrI”~.t)ye”

(d) that any information or docurri”e.rats_Aréjguiredfbyv
Commissioner under the ruiesor byesiaws has=or’.have ‘;
not been duly furnished; ” ” V ~ ”

(e) that streets or roads have=..not_. bee’n’*m_ade7 as
required by Section 280;’ ‘ i V

(F) that the Proposed.” be an
encroachment upon Goyemmentvorfiorporation land;

(g) that the-j_sii_:e of su_c’nfbui’idii’ng}does not abut on a
street or._a_ pro_1_e’ct’ed_ st.”-e_et__ancI ‘there; is no access to such
buiidirzg fronmany such street by a passage or pathway
appertaining to”such”isite._and’not Eess than five metres

wide at’any.part.V ‘

(2) Whenever th’e..C’omm._issi–0nVer’ or the Standing Committee
refuses to approve a sitefor a” building or to grant permission to
constructor reconstruct’ a…b_.uiiding the reasons for such refusal
shall’bes’pecificalEy~stated in the order.

‘V3’.-“___ties:’a.lvsoVAV.t’Vi3VrEngs to my notice Rule 80 of the Indian

V”stElectricity R:.;’Ees._of’i956, the provisions of which are extracted

‘4 H'”hiére’ir1bel0w:’i-* it

4”;~..’_’s£:. c;e’a’i–ance from buildings of high and extra-high vottage
‘ Iines___—‘ (1) Where a high or extra~high voitage overhead line passes

HS}-l

above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on
the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part
of the building immediately under such line, of not less than –

(a) for high voltage lines up to and including 33,000 volts

3.7 m.etr§’:’s_”i-

(b) for extra»high voltage lines …………. .. 3.7 metres plus 0.30”’—-._

metre for every.addji’ti.onaMl ”

33,’00Q’vol’ts or
« 0 I’-lai”t_:the’reof. ‘ s

(2) The horizontal clearance between’the–.nearest _conducto’r.a0n’d.

any part of such building shall, on the basis._oF maxirnumv def!eci:icn_’,

due to wind pressure, be not less than

(a) for high voltage iines up tyo..ain’d_includin’g” 1 volts

._1V.V2-._metres
(lo) for high voltage lines’ and up to and
including 33,000 volts.,3:i….*;,.:..g._…2;0 ‘metres

(c) for extra~h’;ig’lh_uvoltage iinesél.;….’.’;.’.2;0″‘metres plus 0.3
V metre for even!

additional 33,000 volts

or part thereof. ”

4. l\iextlyt.._he_i3Vrin.gs notice Bye–law No.7.4 of the
i;%.angaio.r-sit.iVl’ahanag”a.ra_ Palike Building Bye~Laws, 2003, the

provislo-ngs of viphigohare extracted hereinbeiowz

*z.4~9ista’a;<:e* of building from electrical |ines.– No
bu~il_ding' shall be erected below an electrical line, as well

. as wigthin the horizontal distance from the electrical line
indicated in the Table 3. The vertical distance below the
"ievel of the electrical line and the topmost surface of the
" . builciing corresponding to the minimum horizontal
"V-distance, shall be as indicated in Table 3. The minimum

R81-f.

vertical clearance is not applicable if the horizontal
distance exceeds the minimum prescribed.

TABLE 3
(Bye-law 7.4) 4. _
Distance of buildings from electrical lines ~ V ”

Eiectrical iines Vertical Hor’i~:?Von?ifa’l. in
clearance in fcle’ara’_n<:e"~.

Metres A -in Metres

(a) Low and medium voltage lines ._ .. , . V
sen/ice lines upto 11 KV V 2.5: 1–..l2″ . 2 V

(b) High voitage lines upto and ”

including 11 KV ‘

(c) High voltage line above 11 _ é_
and upto and including 33 K\!. Q31?

5. with reference to the” afovre~fextr=a.ctéd..if-‘provisions, Sri

Prasanna submits t_fha’tf;tthe.proposed” t:):Vu:i’l’din.gié is not within the

forbidden distarice:slot’::§t’i*ie:”*’.V,h:i-oheterision wire. His further
grievance B.B.M.P. authorities have
already sapnctiolnled plan in respect of the simiiariy
placed a.._i;pliQ_ants/ownierst-«-««When the road formation below the

permitted by the respondent authorities in

‘Vt-…i.t.he caseodf oth.ers,..sthe deniai of the permission to the petitioner

.4V_l«i’_–«am’ounts to~~disg_r:rimination.

I.G.Gachchinamath, the learned counsei for the

wlrespo-ridents would support the impugned order. He submits

HER’.

6

that as the high–tension wire passes through the land abutting
the proposed buiiding, the respondent authorities are justified in

turning down the petitioner’s request for the approva.E»’~.oi?_yi_the

building plan. He submits that public safety

road should be formed below the high~te_n.sio_n lin_e’.'”””=iW .

7. My perusal of the impugned ordeir}”dated_”G.3V.Jr2rZ–Qb*3:.

(Annexure–i-I) reveals that it is a no_ri-*r.easoAned endors«e_’rn~e.nt. It = i’

does not speak of the distance betwe.en”*’t.he..high¥t’ension§line and
the construction site. It does’ -of permission to

construction is barregdby w’r’i’ich.:prov.i$.i_onV’.of?iaw. It does not

make refereincle p:roy;i’sion”_”V’o’fV’V law. It is therefore
absoluteiy unsupportablejandunsustainabie. The same is liable
to quashed and a”cco_VrdVingiy”i_t Vislquashed.

T’he Eresp’ic.ijicients'”a’rAe directed to consider the petitioner’s

applicaxtiion&i’fo:rj.thejapproval of the building plan by taking into

‘ =__ “a ccou nt __

the-tiistance between the piace where the road is

” proposed to be formed and the high-tension wire,

Vi Mb) the provisions of law,

3814.

c) what has been done in similar cases,

(:1) requirements of pubiic safety.

9. The respondents shail consider the case’.Vof’:”th”eV.

petitioner for the approvai of the building pian me_a”i’ii.ng’f§1’i.iy

pass the necessary orders within one mo’VnAtVh”fi’*om._the.Ad_ate.of:the1

issuance of the certified copy of today’s order,’

10. This petition is according’I’y,:a!Iowed.._V_ ‘No’-iordéewriias to
costs.

we