Introduction:

In Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum v. State of Karnataka & Others [WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2023], the Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project, which was in its final stage of completion. The petition, filed by the Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum, sought a declaration that the redesign project implemented by the Department of Urban Land Transport was unscientific and detrimental to public interest. A division bench comprising Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind ruled in favor of the respondent authorities, emphasizing that the project aimed to enhance public convenience, improve traffic flow, and provide better facilities to street vendors and pedestrians.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners contended that the redesign project, particularly the construction of vending cubicles on footpaths, would reduce the width of the motorable road, leading to traffic congestion and inconvenience. They argued that accommodating street vendors on the footpath would compromise pedestrian safety and increase vehicular challenges, ultimately defeating public interest. The petitioners suggested alternative solutions, including constructing a multi-level car parking facility to house street vendors in a shopping complex rather than on footpaths. They claimed that the project lacked scientific planning and would disrupt the balance between traffic management and pedestrian accessibility.

In response, the respondent authorities, including the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), defended the project as a well-planned initiative for managing the bustling Gandhi Bazaar area. They explained that the project included expanded footpaths, vending zones with temporary structures, and provisions for pedestrian and vehicular movement. The respondents cited a prior judgment in Sri Iranna and Another v. Union of India and Others (2024), where the Karnataka High Court held that redesigning or realigning roads falls under executive functions and does not warrant judicial intervention unless there is a violation of constitutional rights or statutory provisions. The respondents emphasized that 95% of the project was already completed, with ₹24.88 crores invested, and the remaining work, including temporary shelters for street vendors, would soon be finalized.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the PIL, reiterating that matters involving technical expertise and executive functions should not be interfered with by the judiciary unless there is a manifest violation of the law. The bench observed that the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project was conceived for better management of the area, which is a bustling hub for street vendors and shoppers. The Court noted that the redesign project aimed to enhance public convenience by ensuring organized vending zones, improving traffic movement, and protecting vendors from adverse weather conditions.

The Court relied on the affidavit and detailed plans submitted by the BBMP, which outlined the project’s objectives and progress. The bench emphasized that 95% of the work was already completed, and the remaining 5% involved setting up temporary vending structures. It noted that an amount of ₹24.88 crores had been spent on the project, and halting it at this stage would not only waste resources but also jeopardize public interest. Referring to the precedent in Sri Iranna and Another v. Union of India and Others, the bench underscored that courts should refrain from encroaching upon technical and administrative matters unless gross irregularities are evident.

The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the objections raised by the petitioners. It held that the redesign project was executed for the benefit of the public and aligned with principles of urban development and street vendor welfare. The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in policy matters and highlighted the importance of balancing developmental projects with public convenience.

Conclusion:

The Karnataka High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s deference to executive functions in matters requiring technical expertise. By dismissing objections to the Gandhi Bazaar Market Redesign project, the Court prioritized public convenience and urban development over individual grievances. The judgment affirms that courts should intervene in policy matters only when there is clear evidence of illegality or arbitrariness, ensuring a balanced approach to governance.