Site news

THE THEN AAG KM NATRAJ BETRAYED THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY SUPPRESSING CORRIGENDUM CIRCULAR DATED 26 -08-1997

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
THE THEN AAG KM NATRAJ BETRAYED THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY SUPPRESSING CORRIGENDUM CIRCULAR DATED 26 -08-1997
by System Administrator - Tuesday, 12 April 2016, 4:44 AM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: It is simple case of betrayal by the then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj who did not told the high court about existence of Corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 which gave state government power to allot the G category sites ,brought disgrace and disrepute to the state government by suppressing the Corrigendum Circular.. Whereas court orders were based on circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 in which sate government had no power to allot the G category sites.(Page number 72 para (i) of order WP 11102/2008Dated 15-12-2010).The then Government sensing that it had no power to allot the G category sites in circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 it did amendment to take power to allot the G category sites by issuing Corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 and since then it was allotting G category sites. State Government second time did the same exercise to take power to allot the G category sites retrospectively by way of amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 as per the HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) had grantedliberty to the Government to frame appropriate rules in accordance with law. It is pertinent to note that circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 read with Corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 is replaced and substituted by Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 in rule 5which is almost same and similar with minor clarifications so it is retrospectively applicable.

Request was made to Jayachnadra the law minister to issue an "official note” and he has issued an "official note”on our request on 11-12-2015 directing Principal Secretary UDD to scrutinize and act as per law on our request and act accordingly in respect of our request tofile an affidavit in HKHC in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) stating that" Earlier Government had also power to allot G Category sites under rule 5 as per Circular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997issued under old rule 5 is almost similar to that of present amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 and present government also took power to allot G category sites retrospectively by way of amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 (similar to Circular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997issued under old rule 5 ) which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 in place of old rule 5 as HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) had grantedliberty to the Government to frame appropriate rules in accordance with law. Mr K J George Bengaluru Development Ministerand UDD department has failed to take up follow up action after amendment and this amendment along with Circular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997issued under old rule 5 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 is just similar to Circular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997issued under old rule 5. Now with or without latest amendment made on 20-05-2015 state government has power to allot G category sites as per BDA rules and "BDA (allotment of sites) rules 2015” which amends "BDA (allotment of sites) rules 1984” "by substitution” validating G-category sites since 1984 as both amendment and the circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 read with corrigendum circular NO UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 both are similar and amendment is a simple clarification as state government had power to allot G-category sites with or without amendment asCircular No UDD 129 MNJ dated 06-08-1997 Read with corrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 issued under old rule 5 is almost similar to that of present amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 made on 20-05-2015.

It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.An amending Act may be purely declaratoryto clear a meaning of a provision of the

Principal Act which was already implicit.A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect. (ibid, pp.468-469).The substitution of one text for the other pre-existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting.'Substitution' has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision (See Principles ofStatutory Interpretation, ibid, p.565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 645, State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC 60, Koteswar Vittal Kamath Vs. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. (1969) 1 SCC 255 and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. S. Michael & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 933.In West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Ors.'s case (supra) a three-Judges Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule.Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative.In Mangilal Pindwal's case (supra) this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force.In Koteswar's case (supra) a three-Judges Bench of this Court emphasizedthe distinction between 'supersession' of a rule and 'substitution'of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place.

Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 have been published by the Gazette notification No UDD 475 MNJ 2014 ,Banagaluru Dated 20-05-2015 which has come into force from the 20-05-2015the date on which it is published in the official gazette of Government of Karnataka . This amendment of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 in place of old rule 5 . Which makes this amendment effective retrospectively since BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 is amended by BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 2015 as rule 5 is "substituted” in Rule 5 of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984. "The word 'substitute' ordinarily would mean 'to put (one) in place of another', or 'to replace'. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, at page 1281, the word 'substitute' has been defined to mean 'To put in the place of another person or thing', or 'to exchange'. In Collins English Dictionary, the word 'substitute' has been defined to mean 'to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing'; 'to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)"; or 'a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague'." This amendment was made as per HKHC order in WP 23475/2010 C/WWP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) as liberty was reserved to the Government to frame appropriate rules in accordance with law as it was said in the order that Government has no power to allot G Category sites and Government took power to allot G category sites retrospectively by way ofamendment toBangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 in place of old rule 5.In view of this amendment UDD Department is duty bound to inform the HKHC in WP 23475/2010 C/W WP 1032/2006 and WP 36275/2009 (BDA PIL) that earlier Government had no power to allot G Category sites and Government took power to allot G category sites retrospectively by way of amendment to Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of site)(Amendment) rules 2015 which in turn amends BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984 by "substitution” of new rule 5 in place of old rule 5.

The then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj has personally committed blunder in Karnataka High court in order inWP 23475/2010Dated 25-08-2012that WP 11102/2008Dated 15-12-2010 stating the orders are correct instead of challenging them in Writ Appeal he personally stated that Government has no power to allot G category site while suppressing the fact of 1-4 citations andCorrigendum Circular No UDD 129 MNJ97 (P) Bangalore dated 26 -08-1997 according to which Government had had power to allot G category site since 26 -08-1997 .It was embracement to state government that then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj was stating wrongly thatGovernment has no power to allot G category site whereas the then Advocate General Vijaya Shankar stated in a report to Government on 27-06-2012that G category allotment was done as per rules in respect of then law minister Suresh Kumar. The then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj failed to communicate this report to HKHC in WP 23475/2010 Dated 25-08-2012that WP 11102/2008Dated 15-12-2010 as these court orders were based on circular NO UDD 129 MNJ DATED 06-08-1997 and not based on corrigendum circular NO UDD 129 MNJ 97 (P) BANGALORE DATED 26 -08-1997 in which government had power to allot the G category sites. .BDA has authority to allot ABCDEF category and suppressed the Fact of BDA has allotted more than two Lakhs sites in 62 Layouts to General Public since inception of BDA and less than two thousands sites allotments under discretionary quota in ABCDEFG category which should not rise any bodies eye-brows, Which amounts to less than 1% of general allotments. Whereas Advocate General stated on 27-06-2012 report that G category allotment was done as per rules in respect of Suresh Kumar and this report was not communicated to HKHC by then Additional Advocate General KM Natraj .When institutions other than the executive try their hand at policymaking and about discretionary powers of government, the consequences can be disastrous. The government is accountable to the people through legislature. Governments are not in the business of maximizing revenues. Instead of filling its own pocket, it is obliged, in a welfare state and particularly if government recognizes person in public life and reward them G Category sites it does its duty. You cannot have three executives running the government. This is not to say that courts should not strike down individual site allotments if they are made violating BDA Act and rules and Government Circulars as per THE KARNATAKA GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 , and Regulations/Rules made there under. Individual acts of criminal culpability must be dealt with. Criminal wrongdoing must not be condoned. This does not give reason for stating that government should not have power of allotment of G Category under discretionary quota altogether. But the manner in which G Category sites are allotted for a particular category must be decided upon by government. Not by the media trials. Not by courts. If government has no power than who has power? Actually it is ridiculous to state that government has no power to allot G category sites.