Disposed

Gousemohdin Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2018WP/14152/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged deduction of royalty by State and KPTCL. Court directed petitioners to submit individual representations with facts to Competent Authority within 4 weeks, requiring a decision within 90 days instead of deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit individual representations with necessary facts to Competent Authority within 4 weeks; Authority to decide within 90 days.

Gousemohdin Doddamani Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

W.P.Nos.14152-14155/2018 & W.P.Nos.14720-14721/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS.14152-14155/2018 & WRIT PETITION NOS.14720-14721/2018 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

1.GOUSEMOHDIN DODDAMANI S/O HUSSAINSAB DODDAMANI AGE: 63 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR R/O SUBHASH NAGAR, 2ND CROSS GUDIHAL ROAD, HUBBALLI AT PO: HUBBALLI-580024 DIST: DHARWAD

¶11

2.VENKARADDY S/O HEMARADDY AGE: 42 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR R/O NO.31, VENKATESH RAMAKRISHNA CO – OPE. HOUSING SOCIETY VIDYANAGAR, AT PO: HUBBALLI-580031 DIST: DHARWAD

¶12

3.AHMED HUSSAIN SANI S/O MAHABOOBSAHEB SANI AGE 47 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR R/O 3929/A, AMARESHWAR NAGAR NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND BADAMI - GADAG ROAD RON, AT PO: RON 582209 DIST: GADAG

¶13

¶14

W.P.Nos.14152-14155/2018 & W.P.Nos.14720-14721/2018

¶15

4.GANAPATHI SUNAGAR S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS PWD CONTRACTOR, NEAR KEB MARUTHI GALLI, GAJENDRA BUILDING AT PO: SIRSI 581401, DIST: KARWAR

¶16

5.NAVEEN RATHOD S/O UTTAMSINGH RATHOD AGE: 29 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR PLOT NO.1, KURDEKAR LAY-OUT MANJUNATH NAGAR, GUKUL ROAD AT PO: HUBBALLI-580030

¶17

6.MOHMED HANIF S/O GOUSEMOHDIN DODDAMANI AGE: 37 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR R/O SUBHASH NAGAR, 2ND CROSS GUDIHAL ROAD, AT PO: HUBBALLI -24 DIST: DHARWAD ... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI N BASAVARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES (MINES), M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶20

2.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PADMA S. UTTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

¶22

W.P.Nos.14152-14155/2018 & W.P.Nos.14720-14721/2018

¶23

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO COLLECT THE ROYALTY FROM THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONERS AND FURTHER DIRECT THEM TO REFUND THE ROYALTY WHICH WAS ILLEGALLY COLLECTED BY DEDUCTING THE SAME IN THEIR BILLS.

¶24

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.830/2006 and submits that the claim of the petitioners for refund of the royalty wrongly deducted from their bills deserves to be considered on the appropriate representation being made.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has pointed

¶28

out that even the representation made by four of the petitioners on 21.12.2016 (Annexure-C) had been vague and uncertain and bereft of all the necessary particulars.

¶29

We are not pronouncing on the merits of the claim of the petitioners but, having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6020/2007 decided on 18.04.2007 and in the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that interest of

¶30

¶31

W.P.Nos.14152-14155/2018 & W.P.Nos.14720-14721/2018

¶32

justice shall be served if it is left open for the petitioners in making appropriate individual representation, clearly stating all the necessary facts as also the relief sought to be claimed with the basis thereof, to the Competent Authority and while requiring the Competent Authority to take a decision thereupon in accordance with law.

¶33

Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of at this stage itself with the requirement that if each of the petitioners make individual representation with necessary facts and particulars, clearly stating the relief claimed with the basis thereof, to the Competent Authority within four weeks from today, the Competent Authority shall take a final decision thereupon in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within 90 days of making of the representation.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

Gousemohdin Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gousemohdin Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H K Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist

H K Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist

H.K.Lakshmane Gowda Vs Senior Geologist

Smt. Usharani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K H Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Udupi Jilla Hoigedjoni Karmikara Sangha Vs State of Karnataka