Don't take precipitative action against Mall of Asia: HC to Bengaluru police

The High Court of Karnataka on Sunday ordered the Bengaluru police not to take any precipitative action against the Phoenix Mall of Asia until the matter is sorted or it passes an order. 

Vacation judge Justice MBS Kamal passed this order after hearing a petition filed by Sparkle One Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, which owns the newly opened mall located in Byatarayanapura, North Bengaluru. 

The company challenged the order passed by the Bengaluru Police Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate, B Dayananda, on December 30, 2023, under CrPC sections 144(1) and 144(2). The order stated that public access be restricted to the mall between December 31, 2023, and January 15, 2024. 

The order specified that since the mall opened in October 2023, there have been "certain grave concerns" of inconvenience like traffic congestion, noise pollution etc, to the daily lives of people living in the surrounding areas. It also pointed out that the mall in question is situated on a highway which connects various public amenities and results in undue congestion of the public area. 

Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that the order in the first place was unsustainable because it did not meet the requirements and parameters of ingredients of the CrPC Section 144. He called the order "as ambiguous as it could be" because it directs the petitioner to "restrict the public access" to the mall, which would only have the effect of closing down the mall for a period between December 31, 2023, and January 15, 2024, which is unsustainable. 

In his counter-argument, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty submitted that the order had been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, not only the traffic congestion, pollution and other inconveniences caused to the public at large, but also keeping in view the law and order, which might go out of hand. 

According to him, the city police are the best judge in assessing the situation and had passed the order in the interest of the public. 

Justice Kamal noted that the matter could be resolved with the joint deliberations of the petitioner and the city police authorities because both were stakeholders in the matter and their decision would impact the public at large. 

The court further noted that the wording in the order about the restriction to public access should not be read as an order to completely prohibit or prevent the mall from using it for business purposes. The order should also not be read as completely prohibiting and preventing the public from having access thereto. 

"Needless to note that any order passed by the executive should be capable of its effective implementation in its letter and spirit. If it carries any ambiguity or is incapable of implementation, such order per se becomes unsustainable," the court said. 

As both sides indicated that they would hold deliberations at the office of the city police commissioner at 3 pm on Sunday, Justice Kamal adjourned the hearing until January 2, 2024, calling upon submitting the outcome of the meeting.