Bitter PILs for project planners

Out Of Court

 The latest example is the case of BPL Ltd vs S P Gururaja, which delayed a project for eight years in the shadow of litigation. The Karnataka High Court had accepted the objections of the petitioners and quashed the allotment of the land for the project. The company moved the Supreme Court in 1998, and it got relief from the apex court only a few days ago.

 The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board acquired a vast tract of land for allotments to entrepreneurs who intended to set up industries in the state. BPL applied for 500 acres, and it was allotted 175 acres.

 Then a PIL was filed by some people claiming to be social workers. They alleged that the land was given to BPL at a rate lower than that given to others. The allotment was made without inviting applications and following procedures and it was vitiated by legal malice.

 These arguments found favour with the high court which quashed the allotment of land to BPL and issued several other directions against the company. It was in this context that the Supreme Court criticised the PIL and the high court.

 The Supreme Court stated that it did not find any illegality in the transaction. The judges said: