| Corruption ROKO – Corruption Report On Karmayog Online | |
| Form No. 0172 | Friday, March 13, 2009 |
| B.B.M.P, Bengaluru, KA | |
| We have received a complaint as per the details below. The filled form will also be displayed at www.karmayog. |
| A: Details of the government organisation | |
| 1. Name of government organisation: | B.B.M.P |
| 2. State: | Karnataka |
| 3. City: | Bengaluru |
| 4. Department: | Engineering / legal |
| 5. Location: | NR Square |
| 6. Designation of government officer involved: | Commissioner |
| 7. Website: | bmponline.org |
| 8. Address of the government organisation: | BBMP headquarters N.R. Square Bengaluru 560 001 |
| B: My Complaint Details | |
| 1. Period of incident: | Before 2007 – Apr |
| 2. Services that were sought: | Demolition / regularisation of illegal constructions by paying fine. Formation of Association in accordance with the Law. |
| 3. Problem/s I faced: | There was collusion between the builder/Asst. Engineers and Lawyers. When matter reported to Lok Ayukta when He was to take action the builder in collusion with the BBMP lawyer got a stay against demolition. This stay was granted exparte (BBMP lawyers did not contest) |
| 4. Bribe amount: | N.A. |
| 5 a. Was the bribe paid? | N.A. |
| 5 b. Could the work have been done without paying the bribe? If so, how? | Don’t know |
| 6. Result: | Joined the suit got stay vacated. But builder got an exparte stay from K.A.T. and from another city civl court instead of appealing to the High court where a caveat was filed. |
| C: Additional Informtion attached | |
| Details of Content: | Compt/uplok/ |
| D: My Suggestions | |
| 1. For head of government department: | |
| Suggestion 1: | Lawyers of the dept. should be asked for an explanation why the appeal of the builder went uncontested facilitating award of an exparte stay and why subsequently action to vacate the stay was not taken. 2. Why the Registrar registered sale deed without copy of the sanctioned plan being attached to the sale deed.? 3. Why Bescom gave supply to unauthorised structures? 4. Why the illegal entry and exit to the building (which is the cause of so muchh grief to the residents) not closed even though reported to the officials concerned. The official entry was closewd to make private gardens. 5. Why registrar of Cooperative socieities to whom complaint was forwarded by ALL resident owners that association was not being formed declined to interfere on ground that it was outside his purview. |
| 2. For the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) / Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): | |
| Suggestion 1: | The judgement given in O.S. 13570/2005 was ground enough for action to be taken against the concerned officials. Instead they were allowed to perpetuate the occurrence as subsequent case details show. |
| 3. For other citizens: | |
| Suggestion 1: | Insist on sale deeds having the sanctioned plan and verify that the building complies with the same. |
| E: I am not ready to reveal contact details because | |
| Not from govt officials but from the builders link. Residents have already been the victim on 3 occasions and on one of the occasions an F.I.R. could not be lodged. We are being harassed into acceptan | |
| Karnataka, Bengaluru, Friday, March 13, 2009 | |