JUDGMENT : K.V. ARAVIND, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vasanthappa for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Mohammed Moin Ulla for learned advocate Mr. M. Muniraja for respondent No.6. 2. The present writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation, has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities not to proceed with the construction of a bridge at the end of 10 th Cross, S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, and further to direct them to complete the construction of a retaining wall of uniform height, measuring 15 feet, near the 10 th Cross. 2.1 The averments made in the petition disclose that the petitioner is a registered association formed by the residents of 10 th , 11 th and 12 th Cross, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, with the objective of addressing common grievances and promoting mutual cooperation among the residents. 2.2 It is stated that a Storm Water Drain (SWD) runs adjacent to the 10 th , 11 th and 12 th Cross. The entire area, including the portion in question, experiences flooding during the monsoon season. It is further averred that such flooding is attributable to the poor maintenance of the SWD. To address this issue, the Government proposed the construction of a retaining wall with a ‘U’-shaped storm water drainage system, with a view to prevent flooding during the monsoons. Taking into account the flow of water and the geographical conditions of the area, a retaining wall of 15 feet in height was constructed. 2.3 It is alleged that, at the instigation of respondent No.6, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) halted the construction of the retaining wall at a height of 4 feet adjacent to the 10 th Cross. It is further alleged that respondent No.6 is attempting to obstruct the construction of the retaining wall in order to facilitate the construction of a bridge across the SWD to provide access to respondent No.6 apartment from the 10 th Cross. It is further alleged that respondent No.6 is attempting to obstruct the construction of the retaining wall in order to facilitate the construction of a bridge across the SWD to provide access to respondent No.6 apartment from the 10 th Cross. 2.4 It is contended that if the height of the retaining wall is reduced to 4 feet, the very purpose of constructing the wall with a height of 15 feet would be defeated, as such reduction would result in the diversion of water flow into the residential areas through the10 th Cross. 3. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 – BBMP have filed a memo dated 24.08.2024 enclosing a technical report. As per the said report, the SWD has been developed to connect Devasandra Lake to Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout. The report states that the construction of the retaining wall, measuring 15 metres in length, remains incomplete due to the request made by respondent No.6 for access through the 10 th Cross by reducing the height of the retaining wall. 3.1 It is further stated in the report that the height of the retaining wall on the upstream side is 3 metres, and on the downstream side is 3.5 metres. The report opines that the request of respondent No.6 to construct a crossover/culvert across the SWD at the exit of the 10 th Cross is unscientific. For such construction, the height of the retaining wall would have to be reduced to 1.10 metres, which, if done, would lead to flooding and over-spillage of water, thereby adversely affecting the surrounding areas. The report also notes that the sanctioned plan issued by the Assistant Director, K.R. Puram, provides access to S.R. Layout through the 9 th Cross, and, therefore, a crossover/culvert through the 10 th Cross is unwarranted. 4. Respondent No.6 has filed a Statement of Objections contending that the width of the Storm Water Drain (SWD) has been increased from 6 feet to 15 feet, and, as a consequence, the height of the retaining wall as proposed by the BBMP is unwarranted. It is further stated that the apartment complex of respondent No.6 houses more than 70 families, and if the construction of a crossover/culvert at the exit of the 10 th Cross is not permitted, the said families would be deprived of access to the apartment. It is further stated that the apartment complex of respondent No.6 houses more than 70 families, and if the construction of a crossover/culvert at the exit of the 10 th Cross is not permitted, the said families would be deprived of access to the apartment. It is also contended that the decision of the BBMP to construct a high retaining wall, as well as the averments made in the present public interest litigation, are unscientific. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vasanthappa, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the BBMP has constructed a 'U'-shaped Storm Water Drain (SWD) with a retaining wall of 14 feet in height. It is submitted that if a crossover/culvert is to be constructed at the end of the 10 th Cross, it would have to be constructed at ground level, thereby necessitating a reduction in the height of the retaining wall to 4 feet. It is contended that, considering the flow of water during the monsoon season, the BBMP has constructed a retaining wall of 14 feet height to facilitate the safe passage of storm water from Devasandra Lake to Seegehalli Lake. 5.1 It is further submitted that any reduction in the height of the retaining wall to 4 feet for the purpose of constructing a crossover at the exit of 10 th Cross would result in water flow beyond 4 feet entering the residential area, thereby causing flooding. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.6 apartment has an independent access, and that the request for construction of a crossover at the exit of 10 th Cross is only for the purpose of obtaining an additional access. It is submitted that, as per the revenue and BBMP records, respondent No.6 does not have any sanctioned access through the 10 th Cross. It is further alleged that the demand for construction of a crossover at the said location is being pursued by exerting political pressure. 6. Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, submits that the Storm Water Drain (SWD) connecting Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout was developed with side retaining walls of a height ranging from 3 to 3.50 metres, in order to prevent flooding and over-spillage of water during the monsoon season. 6. Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, submits that the Storm Water Drain (SWD) connecting Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout was developed with side retaining walls of a height ranging from 3 to 3.50 metres, in order to prevent flooding and over-spillage of water during the monsoon season. It is submitted that, if the crossover as sought by respondent No.6 is to be constructed, the height of the side retaining wall would have to be reduced to 1.10 metres. 6.1 It is contended that any reduction of the retaining wall height below 3 to 3.50 metres would result in storm water entering the residential areas near the 10 th Cross. It is further submitted that the height of the retaining wall was determined on the basis of a scientific study, and any reduction thereof would be scientifically unsound and would likely result in flooding. It is also submitted that respondent No.6 has an independent access and that the proposed crossover is unnecessary. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mohammed Moin Ulla, appearing for learned advocate Mr. M. Muniraja on behalf of respondent No.6, submits that prior to the development of the Storm Water Drain (SWD), its width was 6 feet, and it has now been increased to 15 feet. It is contended that, in view of this increase in width, the construction of side retaining walls with a height of 14 feet is not only unnecessary but also unscientific. It is further submitted that the residents of the apartment complex belonging to respondent No.6, comprising approximately 70 families, would be deprived of access if the proposed crossover at the exit of 10 th Cross is not permitted. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the Storm Water Drain (SWD), including the side retaining wall between Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake passing through S.R. Layout and the location in question, has been constructed. The averments made by the petitioner, as well as respondent Nos.2 to 5 and respondent No.6, clearly indicate that the SWD has been constructed with side retaining walls of a height ranging between 3 metres and 3.50 metres. 9. The averments made by the petitioner, as well as respondent Nos.2 to 5 and respondent No.6, clearly indicate that the SWD has been constructed with side retaining walls of a height ranging between 3 metres and 3.50 metres. 9. It is also evident that a portion of the side retaining wall, measuring approximately 15 metres in length near respondent No.6 apartment and at the exit of the 10 th Cross Road, remains incomplete. The reason for the incompletion appears to be the request made by respondent No.6 for construction of a crossover/culvert at the said location. The petitioner has objected to the construction of the crossover, contending that if the height of the retaining wall is reduced to accommodate the crossover, it would result in flooding of the residential area situated along 10 th Cross Road. In contrast, respondent No.6 contends that, in view of the increase in the width of the SWD from 6 feet to 15 feet, the existing height of the retaining wall (3 to 3.50 metres) is excessive and unnecessary. 10. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 – BBMP have submitted a technical report, which states that in order to construct the proposed crossover, the height of the retaining wall would need to be reduced to 1.10 metres. The report further indicates that such a reduction would result in flooding and over-spillage of water into the adjoining residential area along 10 th Cross Road. The technical report categorically states that reducing the height of the side retaining wall would be unscientific and would likely lead to flooding. 11. The factual matrix as presented in this petition, along with the rival contentions advanced by the parties, gives rise to two principal issues for consideration. Firstly, whether the residents of respondent No.6 apartment would be denied access in the event the proposed crossover at the exit of 10 th Cross is not constructed. Secondly, whether it is feasible and appropriate to reduce the height of the retaining wall to facilitate such construction. 12. In light of the rival contentions, respondent No.6 was afforded an opportunity during the course of the hearing to produce documents establishing the existence of access to the land on which respondent No.6 apartment is constructed through the 10 th Cross. Learned advocate for respondent No.6 filed a memo dated 04.04.2025, enclosing a conversion order dated 27.02.2012, photographs, and the building sanction plan issued by the BBMP. Learned advocate for respondent No.6 filed a memo dated 04.04.2025, enclosing a conversion order dated 27.02.2012, photographs, and the building sanction plan issued by the BBMP. However, the learned advocate for respondent No.6 was unable to identify or demonstrate the existence of a road through the 10 th Cross connecting to respondent No.6 apartment. 13. Conversely, the photographs annexed to the memo confirm the flooding of the 10 th Cross, which lends support to the contention of the petitioner. Furthermore, the scientific report submitted by respondent Nos.2 to 5 BBMP establishes that respondent No.6 apartment has an independent access road. This evidence effectively negates the claim of respondent No.6 that there exists a road through the 10 th Cross providing access to their apartment. 14. According to the technical report submitted by respondent Nos.2 to 5 BBMP, the Storm Water Drain (SWD) between Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout was developed with side retaining walls maintained at a height ranging from 3 metres to 3.50 metres to prevent flooding and over-spillage of water into the adjoining residential areas during the monsoon season. The report states that the retaining wall height has been consistently maintained throughout the length of the SWD between Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake. The construction of the proposed crossover, as per the report, would necessitate a reduction in the height of the retaining wall to 1.10 metres. Such a reduction would give rise to two significant anomalies. Firstly, it would render the construction of the retaining wall, maintained at a height of 3 metres to 3.50 metres throughout the length of the SWD, purposeless. Secondly, the flow of water exceeding the height of 1.10 metres would enter the residential area through the 10 th Cross, resulting in flooding and over-spillage of water in the surrounding locality. This would defeat the very purpose of constructing the SWD and retaining walls at a height exceeding 3 metres. 15. The technical report further states that, as per the building plan approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, K.R. Puram, respondent No.6 apartment has its entry and exit through 9 th Cross, S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, Bengaluru. This would defeat the very purpose of constructing the SWD and retaining walls at a height exceeding 3 metres. 15. The technical report further states that, as per the building plan approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, K.R. Puram, respondent No.6 apartment has its entry and exit through 9 th Cross, S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, Bengaluru. Considering that respondent No.6 has a planned entry and exit, the proposed crossover through 10 th Cross would constitute an alternative access, which, however, comes at the risk and cost of potential flooding and over-spillage of water towards the 10 th Cross. The construction of the side retaining wall to a height exceeding 3 metres has been identified by the technical experts as the only viable solution to prevent flooding. In light of the foregoing and considering all aspects, it is difficult to accept the contention of respondent No.6 that the height of the retaining wall is unscientific. 16. Having considered the factual aspects and the documentary evidence on record, the Court is persuaded to entertain this public interest litigation and to issue appropriate directions. 17. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are hereby directed to complete the construction of the Storm Water Drain, including the side retaining wall, to the prescribed height of 3 metres to 3.50 metres as planned, particularly in the pending stretch of approximately 15 metres near Sripada Apartments at the exit of 10 th Cross Road connecting Basavanapura Main Road, Bengaluru. 18. Considering the importance of the issue and the imminent approach of the monsoon season, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of this order. 19. With the above observations and direction, writ petition is disposed of.