EBM News English
Leading News Portal in English

HC to rule on Palike chief’s false affidavit

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court said that it would pass orders on Thursday in relation to a false affidavit filed by the BBMP commissioner over the non-implementation of orders on giving wide publicity to the fact that citizens will be entitled to compensation in case they meet with accidents due to potholes in the city. Going through the affidavit filed by the BBMP commissioner BH Anil Kumar on Tuesday, the division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said that two things were clear—one, the commissioner filed a false affidavit and the second that he did not express remorse for the same. The court was hearing a PIL filed by one Vijayan Menon and others over the condition of the roads.

Though the court issued directions about wide publicity, the commissioner had filed an affidavit before the court that a unanimous resolution had been passed in a a meeting to not implement the order.  The commissioner stated that a special leave petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court against the said order. When the court pulled up the civic body, it published a notification in newspapers that citizens were entitled to compensation, subject to the SLP’s result. Later, the SLP was dismissed by the SC.

Then the court had asked the commissioner to give the names of those who had participated in the meeting. The commissioner filed an affidavit stating that it was only a consultation and not a meeting. The word meeting was used inadvertently, he claimed. Therefore, the commissioner was asked to file an affidavit tendering an apology. The court directed petitioners to upload photos of potholes using the BBMP’s Sahaya mobile application to check whether it really was serving its purpose.

‘Rocket science not required’
About the delay in implementing the court’s directions to protect the rights of the blind, the BBMP commissioner stated that the mode of implementing this direction was being checked. The bench said that rocket science was not required to protect the rights of the blind.