Quashed

M/S Whitefiled Developers v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022WP/6879/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a preliminary hearing of a writ petition petitioned by a firm challenging a Government Order and a demand notice regarding construction charges, this Court quashed the new Government Order dated 13/09/2019 and consequently the associated demand notice, with liberty to the government to issue fresh notice and the petitioner to challenge the new order, while directing refund of deposited amounts

What did the court decide?

Government Order dated 13/09/2019 quashed; consequently, demand notice dated 05/02/2019 quashed. Registry directed to refund deposit; bank guarantee revoked.

M/S Whitefiled Developers Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.6879/2019 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S WHITEFILED DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: UNIT NO.206 2^ND FLOOR, BARTON CENTER, 84, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER/PARTNER, MR. TANMAY T AGRAWAL. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI MANJU M. SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES NO.1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIYAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 042. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI ARUN K.S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT DECLARING/QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.10.2017 [ANNEXURE-A] ISSUED BY THE R-1 REVISING THE RATES, INCLUDING CHARGES FOR ISSUE OF NO. OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FOR ISSUE OF SANCTION PLAN BY THE BBMP FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING OTHER THAN TAXES IMPOSED BY THE R-3 FO THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶19

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner is

¶21

seeking for quashing of the Government Order dated 27/10/2017 (Annexure-A), bearing No.OE 196 KASE 2017, whereby, the respondent has revised the rates including the charges for issuing the “no objection certificate” for issuance of sanction plan by the BBMP for construction of buildings other than tax imposed by 3^rd respondent for the services rendered by it as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires and also seeking to quash the demand notice 05/02/2019 bearing No.GBC (1) 035/2019 (Annexure-B) issued by 3^rd respondent demanding a sum of Rs.1,93,84,200/for issuance of no objection certificate for the proposed commercial project in the schedule property.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the rates mentioned in the Government Order dated 27/10/2017 has been modified by a new Government Order dated

¶23

¶24

13/09/2019 and would contend that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, under Similar circumstances disposed of the Writ Petition No.31197/2018 and connected matters dated 24/09/2019.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of issuance of a new Government Order dated 13/09/2019, the earlier Government Order dated 27/10/2017 and consequent demand notice be quashed.

¶26

The learned HCGP submits that in light of the new Government Order dated 13/09/2019 liberty be reserved to issue fresh demand notice.

¶27

The said submission of the learned counsel

¶28

for the parties is placed on record.

¶29

¶30

7. In view of the aforesaid submission and the

¶31

facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The Government Order dated 13/09/2019

¶34

is quashed, consequently the impugned demand notice dated 05/02/2019 is hereby quashed.

¶35

(ii) It is needless to observe that the Government is always at liberty to issue fresh demand notice in terms of the Government Order dated 13/09/2019 and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Government Order dated 13/09/2019 in accordance with law.

¶36

Further, the petitioner has deposited 50%

¶37

of the amount demanded in the impugned notice before this Court, in pursuance of the order dated 11/02/2019 and in view of the disposal of the writ

¶38

¶39

petition, the registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner on proper identification.

¶40

Needless to state that if petitioner made

¶41

any excess payment, the same shall be refunded to them.

¶42

The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall stand revoked.

¶43

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is

¶44

disposed of.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

M/S Whitefiled Developers v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Whitefiled Developers 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sujatha R @ Saraswathi Vs Sri Mahesh D Yatnalli

The Managing Committee Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Mirza Tanzeem Alam Beg Vs the Union of India

Sri Manjunatha Vs Sri Siddooji

Smt. Chikkamma Vs the Manager

Sri Sayeed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka