By : M.S.Yatnatti Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : When BDA has power to allot sites in A B C D E F Categories and even today it is allotting then why Government has no power to allot "G " category is when it has power to do so under same circular under which BDA has power.BDA failed to defend the government before Karnataka court. , But this controversy was created by BDA officers with and Government advocates with political and vested interests in respect of G category and with intention oftroubling the state Government of which it is subordinate . Government can allot sites under "G” category sites as per updated rules dated 26 -08-1997 not the out dated circular dated 06-08-1997. State cabinet need to take call on the subject of G-Category it has to review Justice Padmaraj Committee report. Advocate Generalshould guide State cabinet which of the sets of court orders need to followed by BDA and UDD Government of Karnataka whereas one set of orders gives direction to allot G category sites to BDA and states that Government has power to allot G category sites and other set orders states that government has no power to allot G category sites . State cabinet Sub-committee on G category in my view should reject Justice Padmaraj Committee report and file review petition before high court and publish new rules for G category and validating earlier allotments and orders of allotments allotment empowering government with clear terms and also direct BDA to clear allotment of about 955 + 325= 1280 siteallotments for which government has issued orders and still allotments are still pending with BDA to allot them on priority to all eligible allottees including that of Mr M.S.Rajshekhar as per Government order Number UDD 407 BLA 2005dated 27-01-2006. As per Karnataka High court order in in WA 2066/2006 dated 12-09-2007, The Division Bench of Honble justice Sridhar Rao and Honble justice L Narayan Swamyhave held thatthat BDA is subordinate to Government and cannot question the act of Government and BDA is bound by directions issued under Section 65 of the BDA Actin respect of G category of site.
Wherefore there is no legal impediment to BDA to allot siteto Mr M.S.Rajshekhar as per Government order Number UDD 407 BLA 2005dated 27-01-20006 as it has allotted the sites against almost all government orders except few likeMr M.S.Rajshekhar the social worker and Person In Public Life. In the light of above facts Mr M.S.Rajshekhar in a letter to BDA has requested BDAto allot him G Category site as per BDA Act and rules prevailing at the time in force as suchKarnataka High Court has not quashedtheRule 5 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 and Revised Guidelines on Allotment of Stray Sites, 1997and the Government of Karnataka is not party to the case inSri K.Raju v BDA (ILR 2011 KAR 120. I feel with above narration BDA and Government is legally empowered to consider his request to allot him G category site..I am Looking forward for justice and equityfrom BDA in respect ofMr M.S.Rajshekhar and others who have not been allotted the G category sites despite government orders. The BDAis THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). RTI Act 2005 is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, and whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;