PIL petition against BJP MLA Vishwanath as BDA chairman

A PIL petition in the high court has challenged the appointment of Yelahanka MLA S R Vishwanath as the chairman of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

The petition has also challenged the appointment of S M Ram Prasad (finance member), H R Shantharajanna (engineer member) and J Suma as in-charge town plan member of the BDA.

The petition has been filed by Harisha A S, a Bengaluru-based advocate.

Admitting the petition, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi ordered notices to the state government and the BDA, and posted the matter for further consideration to November 30.

The petition states that although Vishwanath was appointed BDA chairman on November 24, 2020, authorities had failed to provide documents relating to the appointment under the Right To Information (RTI). Details of the proceedings of other members’ appointment have not been provided either, the petition adds.

The petition argues that being a sitting MLA, Vishwanath is ineligible to hold the post of BDA chairman. Vishwanath not only receives a monthly salary and perks as an MLA, he is also entitled to remuneration and perks as BDA chairman, it states.

“A single person cannot draw two salaries from the public funds of the state. Thus, an ineligible person has been appointed as the chairman of the authority,” the petitioner said. Citing section 3 (4) of the BDA Act, the petition contends that the chairman shall be a whole-time member and thus the duty of the chairman is reserved and dedicated to the BDA alone.

As regards the appointment of the other three members, the petition pointed out that the state government had not framed appropriate rules and regulations for the constitution of the BDA board. It’s just following a “pick and choose” method to appoint members, the petition adds.

The petition has asked for quashing the appointments and sought a direction to the state government to constitute the board strictly in according with section 3 of the BDA Act, 1976. It also urged the court to direct the government to frame rules and guidelines for these appointments.