<p>A public interest litigation petition has been filed before the high court challenging the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 Act. The petition contends that the new act is unconstitutional and certain provisions run contrary to the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka ordered notice to the state in response to the PIL filed by L S Mallikarjun, a city-based social activist. The petition claims that while Article 243 Q of the Constitution provides for the constitution of municipalities called ‘Municipal Corporation’ for larger urban areas, the state has no authority to enact a separate law for BBMP areas. </p>.<p>The petition said the provision regarding the reservation of the offices of the mayor and deputy mayor by rotation on the occurrence of vacancies runs contrary to Articles 243 T and U of the Constitution. The petitioner also said the establishment of a consultative committee headed by local MLAs overlaps with the powers and functions of the ward committees. </p>.<p>The new act has a provision about the fee on advertisements. According to the petitioner, this provision also runs contrary to the KMC Act and also to the directions issued by the high court in a matter pertaining to illegal hoardings. This apart, the petition said the provisions with regard to regularisation of unlawful buildings/ constructions run contrary to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The new act has a provision to regularise deviations ranging between 25% and 50%.</p>
<p>A public interest litigation petition has been filed before the high court challenging the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 Act. The petition contends that the new act is unconstitutional and certain provisions run contrary to the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka ordered notice to the state in response to the PIL filed by L S Mallikarjun, a city-based social activist. The petition claims that while Article 243 Q of the Constitution provides for the constitution of municipalities called ‘Municipal Corporation’ for larger urban areas, the state has no authority to enact a separate law for BBMP areas. </p>.<p>The petition said the provision regarding the reservation of the offices of the mayor and deputy mayor by rotation on the occurrence of vacancies runs contrary to Articles 243 T and U of the Constitution. The petitioner also said the establishment of a consultative committee headed by local MLAs overlaps with the powers and functions of the ward committees. </p>.<p>The new act has a provision about the fee on advertisements. According to the petitioner, this provision also runs contrary to the KMC Act and also to the directions issued by the high court in a matter pertaining to illegal hoardings. This apart, the petition said the provisions with regard to regularisation of unlawful buildings/ constructions run contrary to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The new act has a provision to regularise deviations ranging between 25% and 50%.</p>