The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the fundamental right to carry on one's occupation, trade, profession or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be restricted by an executive action.
The court held that the right of the owner of a property to obtain sanction for a building plan is a "concomitant right of property" and cannot be abridged by an executive fiat like the guidelines.
The court also held that guidelines of the Union Ministry of Defence for issuance of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for constructions in the vicinity of defence establishments cannot be cited to restrict such constructions when the Works of Defence Act is in operation.
The court explained that the guidelines have no place when the field is occupied by legislation - Works of Defence Act.
The court was hearing a petition by Jambo Plastics Private Limited and Merushikhar Infra (petitioners).
The petitioners were aggrieved by the refusal of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palika (BBMP) to issue a building sanction for a residential project.
The court held that the developer’s right to carry on occupation, trade or business including the business of developing property, would be a right falling within Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution which can be restricted only by a law under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
The court proceeded to grant relief to the petitioners and directed the BBMP to proceed with consideration of grant of sanction without insisting on adherence to the guidelines.
The court ordered that the process must be completed within a period of three months.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Karnataka High Court fundamental right Article 19(1)(g) executive action property owner building plan guidelines Union Ministry of Defence No Objection Certificate (NOC) Works of Defence Act legislation Jambo Plastics Private Limited Merushikhar Infra Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palika (BBMP) residential project developer’s right Article 19 (1) (g) law Constitution relief sanction three months.
