The Karnataka High Court ruled that an empty plot in a residential area cannot be used for commercial parking. The court directed the BBMP Chief Commissioner to report on the implementation of Parking Policy 2.0 by June 20. The ruling followed complaints by HSR Layout residents against Nagendra for renting out his plot for parking, causing noise, pollution, and traffic issues. The court criticized the BBMP and traffic police for inaction, stressing their duty to enforce regulations even on private properties. The judgment underscores the need for effective implementation of parking policies to address Bengaluru's parking challenges.
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that an empty plot in a residential area cannot be used for commercial parking of vehicles. The court has directed the BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) Chief Commissioner to submit a detailed report by June 20 on the implementation methodology of the Parking Policy 2.0.
The Court observed that the BBMP and traffic police cannot claim that they are unable to take action just because a private area is being used for parking vehicles.
Residents of HSR Layout, N Ashwathnarayana Reddy and his brother N Nagabhushana, had approached the court last year, stating that neither the BBMP nor the traffic police had taken any action on their complaint against one Nagendra, who was letting out a vacant plot in their locality for parking two-wheelers and four-wheelers.
The residents claimed that the use of the property for parking vehicles was causing noise and air pollution, as well as increased traffic on the residential road. They argued that there was no provision in the building by-laws or zonal regulations to allow the use of a residential plot for commercial parking purposes by letting it out to a third party. They also said that the presence of parked vehicles and people staying back to talk or smoke was disturbing the peace in the neighbourhood.
However, Nagendra argued that the brothers could not purchase the site, while he could, and they had complained against him with malicious intent. He also claimed that the use of the site for parking was temporary.
The BBMP submitted that the Directorate of Urban Land Transport had formulated the Parking Policy 2.0 in December 2020 to address the parking requirements in Bengaluru.
The Court noted that the BBMP should have taken action if the property was being used for commercial parking, and the traffic police could not abdicate their responsibility by claiming that they were only concerned with traffic on the roads and not parking in an empty plot.
The judge pointed out that despite the Parking Policy 2.0 being stated to have come into force in December 2020, the Area Parking Plan, parking charges framework, streamlining of on-street parking, and the initiation of a pilot permit system had not been carried out by the BBMP. This inaction on the part of the BBMP and the Directorate of Urban Land Transport has resulted in inconvenience to the general public.
The High Court's ruling is a clear call to action for the authorities to take concrete measures to address the parking challenges in the city. The court's observation that the BBMP and traffic police cannot abdicate their responsibilities by claiming inaction on private property underscores the need for a more proactive and comprehensive approach to parking management. As the city continues to grapple with the pressing issue of parking, the implementation of the Parking Policy 2.0 and the court's intervention could pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable solution for Bengaluru's residents.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
