The main legal point established is that delay and laches cannot prevent the grant of relief, and authorities must exercise powers in accordance with the law.

( 1 ) CONTENDING that the building licence issued for construction of multistoreyed/multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in II and III cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, was illegal and void, the petitioners, an association of the residents of the area, had prayed for quashing of the licence and for issuance of directions to respondent 1 to demolish the construction already put up on the sites by exercising the powers vested in it under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'act' ). It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses upon being made to understand and under the bona fide belief that the layout would be developed and maintained in accordance with law. According to them, the menace of multistoreyed and multi-apartment buildings in the Bangalore City particularly in Koramangala layout which is considered to be a posh and prestigious layout has been increasing. Many property developers, investors in buildings and speculators in real estate were alleged to have started their activities which were detrimental to the quality of life of the residents of the area. Multistoreyed/multi- apartment buildings were alleged to be causing strain on the public amenities. The property developers were alleged to be in a better position to obtain such building licences by using their influence and money notwithstanding the statutory prohibitions. Licence in controversy was also stated to be the outcome of such an exercise by the developers. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Chandrashekar Hegde v Bangalore City Corporation , petitioners allege that the Corporation was not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites to put up multistoreyed/multi-family dwelling units. The scheme under the CITE Act and BDA Act provided for the construction of residential houses and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of buildings, in violation of law and with the object of inflating the money market of the builders, real estate owners and the property dealers. It was alleged that this Court had directed the Corporation to ensure that the builders did not proceed with the construction in violation of the statutory provisions. In Writ Petition No. 7599 of 1987 this Court directed the corporation not to issue licences to any third party for putting up multistoreyed and multi-family dwelling apartments in the sites allotted by the BDA. After the judgment in December, 1987 one of the petitioners represented to respondents 1 and 2 to re-examine the licences already issued for putting up multistoreyed/multi-family apartments in the light of the law laid down by the high Court. In response, the 1st respondent is stated to have sent communications to all the licensees to stop further construction. Writ Appeal No. 306 of 1988 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th December, 1988 which was titled Pee Kay Constructions v K. Chandrashekar Hegde.

( 2 ) BUILDING licence No. LP 169 of 1987-88 was issued in favour of respondent 4 as noted hereinabove. However, respondent 1 vide its letter dated 4-4-1988 directed respondent 4 to stop all further construction. Such letter was withdrawn by respondent 3 vide its letter dated 26-3-1991. Upon receipt of the letter giving direction to respondent 4 to proceed with the construction, the work was resumed. The withdrawal of the earlier directions stopping construction work was termed by the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. The action of respondents 1 to 3 in allowing construction of the work of multi-storeyed/multi-dwelling units was termed to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of the relevant provisions of law applicable in the case. Respondent 1 was alleged to be not empowered to grant licence to put up such buildings, The licence issued in favour of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document