For the purpose of ready reference we shall reproduce the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2015 as such Delay in filing Review Petition No.
2 to Bharat Petroleum Corporation for establishment of a petrol pump and seeking a declaration that the said allotment be declared null and void.
We may numberice here that, in the meantime, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had allotted this site to Smt.
During the companyrse of hearing, on the basis of a document, it was numbericed that though this site was initially earmarked for a Park, thereafter, the user was changed to that for a Bank.
On that basis, writ petitions were allowed and the allotment made in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was set aside.
for a Bank and, hence, the allotment of the same by the Bangalore Development Authority hereinafter referred to as BDA to be used as a petrol retail outlet was set aside being in violation of Section 38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as Act .
At request, liberty is granted to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to file additional affidavit within two weeks.
The civil appeals shall be listed after four weeks.
Reply thereto, shall be filed by Respondent Nos.
In these three review petitions, which are again preferred by Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Smt.
10747 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.
5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.
Ramadevi for establishment of petrol pump.
Ramadevi and Shri Purushottam.
On the aforesaid premise that the site was earmarked for a Bank, the Court proceeded to decide as to whether it companyld be allotted for a petrol pump and answered the said question in the negative.
The High Court took the view that Civic Amenity Site No.
532 of 2014 is companydoned.
The appeals were initially dismissed by judgment in Purushottam v. State of Karnataka dated 29.11.2013 reported in 2014 3 SCC Having numbericed that there were factual mistakes in the judgment of the High Court which was upheld by this Court, by a detailed order dated 10.09.2015, the review petitions were allowed and the judgment referred to above was recalled.
Two Appeals were filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and appeals were also filed by Smt.
The appellants are aggrieved by the companymon judgment dated 05.09.2011 in Writ Petition No.
10748 of 2013.
Civil Appeal No.
Ramadevi and her husband Shri Purushottam were, accordingly, also arrayed as respondents in those writ petitions.
The respondents in the writ petitions, aggrieved, pursued the matter before this Court.
5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.
5173 of 2006.
Today when the matter was taken up, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents, apparently having gone through the documents, submits that the appellants have already submitted documents referred to in the Review Petitions before the High Court and have sought for a review before the High Court itself and, hence, the matter be remanded to the High Court.
10748 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.
10749 and Civil Appeal No.
10749 10750 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.
5173 of 2006 on the file of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
4 to 14 within two weeks thereafter.
10747 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.
Interim orders to companytinue, in the meantime.
10750 of 2013.
These appeals, as mentioned above, were decided by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013 which is under review accepting the reasons given by the High Court resulting into the dismissal of the said appeals.
The aforesaid appeals were filed impugning the judgment of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Petition No.
Those writ petitions were filed by way of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the allotment of civic amenity site No.
4 to 14 requests for some time in order to verify these documents.
These review petitions are preferred seeking review of our judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.
