SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Abhay S. Oka, Suraj Govindaraj, JJ.
D. S. Ramachandra Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Of Police Bangalore City And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13736 of 2019 (GM-RES-PIL)
Decided On : 21-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. J. Prashanth, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, Aga, Sri. K. N. Puttegowda, Adv.

Point of law:Right to use footways – Encroachment - Right to use footway or footpath is a right of citizens. All this has to be appreciated in the light of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all the penal provisions which we have discussed above must be scrupulously enforced by all the concerned.

Headnote:

Karnataka Traffic Control Act, 1960 - Sections 18, 16 and 14 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 and 12 - Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Section 20 of Section 2 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 118, 117, 122, 127, 177A and 201 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 268 and 283 - Encroachments on footways – Accidents - Loss of human life - Breach or violation of said right guaranteed - causing injuries to citizens more so - Whether a thoroughfare or not, over public have a right of access or over which they have a right to pass - Whether Section 18 needs an amendment for providing for stringent punishments - Whether deprivation of life or personal liberty in a given case is by procedure which is reasonable - Petitioner is a member of Bar has filed this public interest litigation inviting attention of Court to the encroachments made on foot paths/ footways in a particular location in city - Second prayer is for making a particular street for one-way street and the third prayer is for ensuring all road signals are erected - There are compliance reports filed on record - Court must note here affidavit filed by the petitioner has stated that positive actions have been taken by authorities –

Finding of the Court:

Court direct the respondents to strictly implement the prohibitions noted above under both Regulations framed in exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the M.V. Act - It is the duty of State Government and its agencies and instrumentalities to ensure that the aforesaid relevant provisions under M.V. Act, the said Act of 1960, the rules framed under the said Act of 1960 as well as Regulations framed under Section 118 of the M.V. Act concerning footways are strictly implemented - They shall ensure criminal law is promptly set in motion against the offenders and violators – Court may also note here non-implementation of the aforesaid provisions which we have discussed in body of judgment may even amount to violation of right to life guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of Constitution of India –

Result: Petition is disposed of

ORDER :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and third respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. The petitioner who is a member of the Bar has filed this public interest litigation inviting the attention of the Court to the encroachments made on foot paths/ footways in a particular location in the city. The second prayer is for making a particular street for one-way street and the third prayer is for ensuring that all road signals are erected. There are compliance reports filed on record. In fact, as per the order dated 18th January 2021 passed by this Court, the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, visited the street subject matter of this petition and has submitted a report dated 1st February 2021 along with the photographs. We must note here that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 25th March 2021, he has stated that positive actions have been taken by the authorities. He has expressed an apprehension that with the passage of time and after change of present set of officers, their successors may not take any action.

3. A large number of photographs are placed on record of the footways (popularly known as footpaths) which are being used for parking of two wheelers and four wheelers. In fact, the report submitted by the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority also shows that the footways are being used for parking of vehicles and particularly two wheelers and there are other encroachments on the footways.

4. There is an apprehension expressed by the petitioner that with the passage of time, positive action which was taken after appropriate directions were issued by the Court may not be taken. There is some basis for the apprehension that after this Court ceases to monitor the implementation, the officers of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP') and the Police department will show laxity.

5. Therefore, with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the various provisions of law dealing with the use of the footways or footpaths. As far as the rights of the citizens in relation to footways are concerned, there is a detailed order passed by this Court on 31st July 2019 in W.P.No.42927/2015. In the said order, this Court has examined the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the said Act of 1976') including the mandatory obligations of the Corporation under the said Act of 1976. After referring to the various provisions of the said Act of 1976, in paragraph 12, this Court held that it is the statutory obligation of the BBMP to properly maintain public streets by carrying out repairs and improvements thereto. The definition of ‘public street’ under the said Act of 1976 includes a ‘footway’. Even under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the said Act of 2020'), the definition of 'street' includes any footway, subway or riding path or passage over which the public have a right of passage or access. Even under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, clause 20 of Section 2 defines 'street' which includes footways.

6. After considering the issue, this Court in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the aforesaid said order has held thus:

    "14. During the last three or four decades, the Apex Court has considerably extended the scope of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has held that the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes a right to live a meaningful and dignified life. After all, the footways or footpaths are provided so that the citizens can comfortably walk from one place to another. The streets are provided for the citizens so that they can travel comfortably by using vehicles. If there are potholes on the footpaths or on the streets, or if the same are not in good cond

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top