Site news

K. J. GEROGE REPLY TO A QUESTION IN LA ON “G CATEGORY” IS “INCORRECT” “INCOMPLETE”

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
K. J. GEROGE REPLY TO A QUESTION IN LA ON “G CATEGORY” IS “INCORRECT” “INCOMPLETE”
by System Administrator - Monday, 23 November 2015, 11:03 AM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Mr K J Geroge Bengaluru Development Minister in a reply to question number 4268 dated 17-11-2015 asked by Sri Narayan Swamy MLA Bangarapet had provided incorrect and incomplete reply .He said in reply that in view of Justice Farooque Committee no sites were allotted in G-Category even though he admitted the fact that "As per HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) liberty was reserved the Government to frame appropriate rules in accordance with law and using this liberty government issued Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 amending the act by "substitution " and in view of this HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) orders become infractuous and Government should file affidavit in the high court stating that Government has regained power of allotment of G-Category sites through amendment retrospectively and Justice Farooque committee has become redundant and if anybody has complaints against allotment can file individually giving proofs of wrongs if happened to Government and BDA and wholesale enquiry cannot be conducted in view of amendment..

Mr K J Geroge Bengaluru Development Minister and UDD has failed to take up follow up action after amendment and amendment was not communicated to high court as All MLAs MPs Ministers and social workers who have been allotted G Category sites by Government or have Government allotment letters but sites were not allotted by BDA stands to get the benefit by the Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 which is effective retrospectively since 1984 as rule 5 is substituted in Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984. "When an amending rule has stated that the old sub-section has been substituted by the new sub-section the inference is that the Government intended that the substituted provision should be deemed to have been part of the rules from the very inception."As per HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) liberty was reserved the Government to frame appropriate rules in accordance with law and using this liberty government issued Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014by amending rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution of new rule 5” in place of old rule 5which will beeffective retrospectively from 1984 as rule 5 is substituted in oldRule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 and this validates all allotments and Government orders made but still they have not been allotted the sites since 1984 by Government as per as per BDA Act 1976 and Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 as per section (9)which is effective from 20-05-2015 and complying with the guidelines issued by the government in that regard from time to time by Karnataka Government. In matters of substitution by an amendment, "The word 'substitute' ordinarily would mean 'to put (one) in place of another', or 'to replace' it has to be construed that there is not real distinction between the repeal and an amendment.

With amendment of Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 the court order became infractuous and government should file an affidavit and can seek HKHC for winding up of the Committee constituted for the purpose of this as according to court order government has complied the HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/W WP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) and framed appropriate rules in accordance with law. Individual cases can be dealt with separately as per law if any about complaints of allotments to in eligible candidates or persons as now law is in place and accordingly BDA can take corrective steps .In view of the Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 which is effective retrospectively since 1984 as rule 5 is substituted inRule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 ,Wherefore request is madefor Allotment of G category site to Mr M.S.Rajshekhar Social Worker and Congress Leader as per Government order Number UDD 407 BLA 2005dated 27-01-2006 is valid and legal & as per BDA Act 1976 and Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 as per section (9) and complying with the guidelines issued by the government in that regard from time to time by Karnataka Government .It is pertinent to note that High court order in WA 2066/2006 dated 12-09-2007. The Division Bench of Honble justice Sridhar Rao and Honble justice L Narayan Swamy clearly states that BDA is subordinate to Government and cannot question the act of Government and BDA is bound by directions issued under Section 65 of the BDAActin respect of G category of site.

It is pertinent to note that ""State Government has authority under the provisions of BDA Act 1976 and rules made there under to direct BDA to allot the sites to any person/persons under "G” category as per the CORRIGENDUM CircularNo UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997and underCircular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 put together in old rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 and now state government with certain small modification substituted these circular in new rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 which is just clarificatory amendment and retrospectively applicable as it is substituted in place of oldrule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 ".