The Karnataka High Court while dismissing PIL to modify or re-do the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign Project has observed that the same is for larger public convenience and public interest.

The Court was considering a Public Interest Litigation to declare that the project sought to be implemented for the Gandhi Bazaar area as unscientific and to modify or re-do the pedestrians road.

The division-bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind observed, "The Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project is for better convenience of the public, maintenance of traffic movement, to give better facility to the street vendors and to provide the access to the vehicles. The entire re-modeling of Gandhi Bazaar area is thus for larger public convenience and public interest."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate G.R. Mohan while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Niloufer Akbar.

The Petitioner had sought to declare the project to be implemented for the Gandhi Bazaar area in the city of Bengaluru as unscientific. Consequentially, prayers were made to direct the respondent-authorities to modify or re-do the Gandhi Bazaar pedestrians road and further prayers were made to immediately put up the construction of Multi Level Car Parking in their own place and accommodate the street vendors for their business in the shopping complex instead of footpath.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Gandhi Bazaar area is one of the oldest area in the city of Bengaluru and serves the glory and history of the city. It was stated that authorities have been proposing to white topping on the selected roads in the Bengaluru city which includes this project, the Gandhi Bazaar road from Ramakrishna Ashrama to Tagore circle from 0.750 KM to rehabilitate heavy traffic during the peak hours. It was further stated that the DULT is going to reduce 90 feet motorable road into 23 feet in the Gandhi Bazaar area and that on both the sides there is going to be an enlargement of the footpath for pedestrians for their easy walking. It was stated that in this regard, the petitioner did not have any grievance for the project to be implemented.

It was however stated that the plan further indicated that DULT and State are going to put up small cubics on the footpath for the purpose of street vendors and hawkers. Thereby, though the footpath would be expanded, the width of the motorable road would be reduced which will not only lead to inconvenience to the traffic, but in ultimate analysis, would work against public interest. It was further stated that the plan of white topping and modernization of road is not scientific and likely to lead to state of inconvenience and in the name of modernization, a wrong project against public interest is implemented which will disserve the larger public interest.

It was the case that the width of the main road would be reduced and there is no need to expand the footpath width as the present width is enough and convenient. It was stated that if the proposal to expand the footpath width is implemented and if small cubics are created in various sizes and plan to distribute the same place to street vendors, the very purpose of the footpath would loose its identity. It was stated that the people would have no place to walk and people would stop coming as they would have no space to bring their private vehicles also. Therefore, it is stated that making facility of small cubics on the footpath for the street vendors as proposed in the plan is unworkable and counter productive to the very purpose. It is further stated that people will not have the easy walk.

It was stated that the petitioner is not against making the place available to the street vendors, however, the plan is not scientific to cater to the purpose sought to be achieved.

Counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision in Sri Iranna and Another vs. Union of India and Others, in which the Court took a view that functions like redesigning or re-alignment of road are executive functions and the Court would not exercise its public interest jurisdiction to trench upon the executive field. It was submitted that the redesigning of the Gandhi Bazaar road for better traffic management etc. cannot be subject matter of public interest litigation since it is a pure executive project.

The Court at the outset noted that the DULT took up the activity to prepare feasibility report to improve the pedestrian infrastructure in the Gandhi Bazaar and the report examined various options for organizing the vending activities on the street and to provide a better ambience for people who throng the market for their daily shopping needs. It further noted that only after preliminary study, a detailed project and a concept plan for 'Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign' was initiated in collaboration with the agency under the Indo-German Environment Partnership agreement signed in the year 2015 between the Government of Karnataka and foreign agency identified as 'GIZ'. The plan took into the account the inputs received from various stakeholders which were received during the public exhibition held in May, 2022.

It went on to state that it is well-settled that where expert technical functions are involved, the Court would not interject itself that makes the public interest petition not liable to be entertained on that ground only. However, the court clarified that looking at the aspect that the petition is pending since long and it has witnessed long pleadings on the subject, it proceeded to consider the reply of the respondents while deciding the case.

The Court was of the view that the project calls for no interference.

"Not only that, it is given out that the project has been at the advanced stage of its implementation which has started since December, 2022. It is stated that 95% of the project has been completed by January 2024 and remaining 5% of the work like providing temporary shelters to vending zones and to protect street vendors from the vagaries of weather. It is further stated that this work too would have been completed. An amount of Rs.24.88 crores is spent on the project and any modification and alteration will result to inconvenience," the Court observed.

The PIL was accordingly dimissed.

Cause Title:

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate G.R. Mohan

Respondent- Advocate Niloufer Akbar, Advocate B.S. Srinivas, Advoacte B.L. Sanjeev

Click here to read/ download Judgement:



Karnataka High CourtJustice NV AnjariaJustice KV Aravind

Sheetal Joon