The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, January 2, ordered the authorities not to take any further action against Mall of Asia in the matter related to the order of the Bengaluru Police Commissioner closing public access to the mall till January 15. The court had earlier directed the two parties to try to resolve the issue amicably and inform the court. The matter has been adjourned to January 5. While the commissioner ordered the mall shut citing traffic chaos and disruption of tranquillity, the mall developers had agreed to keep the mall closed till further orders.
In the writ petition filed on December 31, the petitioner Sparkle One Mall Developers contended they had been punished for no reason as maintaining traffic was not their obligation. Responding to the Commissioner’s notice, which said the mall had to have 10,000 parking spaces and two-wheelers each, the petitioners argued that they were constructed according to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) building bye-laws, and they had received no objection clearances as well as Occupancy Certificate. “We have 2,324 parking areas, and the police asking 10,000 parking slots has no basis,” they contended.
The petitioners also stated that the Hebbal Traffic Police, before the opening of the mall, had written to them asking how they intended to manage the traffic. To this, the mall developers had communicated twice outlining their strategy and infrastructure to mitigate traffic. In addition, they also sought the help of the traffic police to ensure there would be no traffic congestion.
“The Commissioner of Police has now resorted to impose a restriction on the operation of Phoenix Mall of Asia for a shocking span of 15 days, despite the petitioner having constructed and operated the mall in accordance with law,” they said. The petitioners also argued that it was not just the mall affected but hundreds of stores and people working there.
The petitioners also accused the police of maliciously trawling complaints from various entities, including hospitals, instead of resolving the issue of traffic congestion in the area, which they were authorised and bound to do. They said the order prohibiting public access was ambiguous as it directed the petitioner to "restrict the public access" to the mall, which would only have the effect of closing down the mall between December 31 and January 15, which was unsustainable. The petitioners also offered to close the mall on December 31 for the benefit of the public.
Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, representing the respondents, said the police were best suited to judge the situation, and the order was issued in the public interest. The AG sought to make a distinction that the order did not indicate closing down the business in its entirety. “It only directs the petitioner to ‘restrict the public access’, which cannot be read under any circumstances to mean 'prohibit'. It is for the petitioner to find its ways and means to implement the order.”
The Court first directed the two parties to meet on December 31, explore possibilities and submit the outcome to the court on January 2. The court directed the police that no precipitative action be taken until the matter was resolved amicably or until the court passed orders on the matter.