JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a registered Society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and known as Cubban Park Walkers Association. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23rd September, 2019 passed by the State Government, by which, in-principle approval was granted to construct a multi-storeyed for the use of High Court in the place of a single storeyed structure consisting of ground floor occupied by the Bar Council of Karnataka, which is known as old office of the Election Commission. 3. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for High Court Administration has placed on record an extract of the resolution of the Full Court dated 6th November, 2019 on item Nos.6 and 8 of the agenda. The Resolution passed on agenda item No.6 is on the issue why the High Court needs additional space. The first two paragraphs of the said unanimous resolution reads thus: 'The Full Court made in depth discussion on the subject. It was brought to the notice of the Full Court that large number of Offices of this court including Filing Sections and Scrutiny Sections are operating from the basement for the reason that there is a severe space crunch faced by the High Court. Placing offices in the basement was obviously a temporary arrangement. However, additional area could not be made available to the High Court and therefore, the Offices continue to function in the basement. It is seen that the total carpet area of basement floor is 6600.24 sq.mtres. High Court offices occupy the area of 3606.02 sq.meters in which more than 400 staff members are working. Other offices occupy 614.88 sq.mtres and utility area is of 2359.34 sq.mtres. The filing counters are in the basement. As additional space is not available, the High Court administration is forced to keep these offices in the basement. The filing and pendency in this Court has consistently increased. Moreover, considering the fact that large number of proposals for appoint Judges of this Court are pending, there is an immediate need to have additional Court Halls and Chambers of the Honble Judges. In fact the work of converting existing rooms into Court halls is in progress. Considering the increase in filing and pendency, High Court will need additional staff. More posts of Registrars will have to be created. In fact the work of converting existing rooms into Court halls is in progress. Considering the increase in filing and pendency, High Court will need additional staff. More posts of Registrars will have to be created. The broad assessment made by the administration shows that at present. High Court needs minimum constructed carpet area of about 2,20,000 sq.feet. This will facilitate shifting of the offices from the basement. But, this will not take care of the entire need in the immediate future. Therefore, meetings were held from June, 2019 with the Government Officials including the Chief Secretary. A suggestion came in the meetings that by demolishing the old Election Commission Building, a new building can be built on the same plinth area and that is how the Government granted in principle approval for construction of a building consisting of seven floors and two basements.' (underline supplied) The relevant paragraph of the said resolution at page No.3 reads as under: 'The Full Court was of the unanimous view that the State Government must examine the legality and propriety of constructing a new building in place of Old Election Commission office building. The High Court is of the view that no illegality should be committed while constructing the building and therefore, the State Government will have to take a call on question whether construction of the proposed building will be legal. The full Court of the view that the issues, whether the construction will offend the laws relating to environment and will offend the rights of the citizens, need to be addressed by the Government. The Full Court noted that a plan of the new building is not yet approved by the Building Committee. The Full Court resolved that only if the State Government is of the view that the construction of the proposed building will be legal, then the High Court should process the proposal further.' (underline supplied) 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State states that the Government has not taken any decision on the basis of the aforesaid Full Court resolution. Thus, as there is no decision taken by the State Government, the High Court Administration has not taken any decision. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State states that the Government has not taken any decision on the basis of the aforesaid Full Court resolution. Thus, as there is no decision taken by the State Government, the High Court Administration has not taken any decision. 5. The High Court Administration has not even approved the plan of the construction of the building for the simple reason that the Full Court has unanimously expressed a view that if at all a new building is to be constructed, the construction should not offend the laws relating to environment and should not offend the rights of the citizens. Therefore, the Full Court has called upon the State to take a call on question whether construction of the proposed building will be legal. The resolution of the Full Court shows that the concern regarding environment is not the monopoly of the petitioner. 6. Thus, as on today, the High Court Administration and even Building Committee of the High Court has not approved the plan for construction of new building. Unless the plan is approved, application for grant of permission of BBMP, if required, cannot be made. Therefore, this petition based on apprehension that the High Court is likely to immediately demolish the existing structure consisting of ground floor occupied by the Bar Council and will proceed with the construction of new building has no basis at all. What is observed earlier shows that the petition is premature. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the various issues including the issue whether any portion of the property in possession of the High Court has been notified as a park and whether the alleged construction of new building will offend the laws relating to environment. Today, there is no occasion to go into the questions raised in the petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to entertain this petition and the same is disposed of. As and when the State Government takes some decision on the basis of the decision taken in the Full Court on 6th November, 2019, the State Government will give an intimation thereof to the petitioner. We again make it clear that we have not examined the issue of the locus of the petitioner to maintain the petition and hence, the issue of maintainability is also kept open.