O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, G.L.OZA
B. K. Srintvasan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.: - Bangalore was a beautiful city once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of highrise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greated with tall puffing chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements. Smoking Chimneys produce much needed goods. High-rise buildings save much-scarce space. They have a place in the scheme of things. But where, how, to what extent, at what cost, are the questions raised by some aggrieved citizens of Bangalore. They want congestion to be prevented, population density to be controlled, lung spaces to be provided where people can breathe, existing recreational facilities to be preserved and improved, pollution and health hazards to be removed, civic and soci
Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan
Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras v. Aminchand Mutha
relied on : Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Corpn. of the City of Bangalore
Municipal Board, Sitapur v. Prayag Narain Saigal and Firm Moosaram Bhagwandas
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.