ORDER

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 18^th 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 1^st February 2021 along with the photographs. We must note here that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 25^th 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 31^st 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 condition, the life of