Partly allowed

Poornaprajna Education Centre v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023WP/51130/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging discriminatory language-based lease rates for educational institutions. Court avoided constitutional adjudication, permitting petitioner to seek concession as a charitable society under specific BDA Resolution categories and quashing premature recovery notices.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to make representation for concessional rates as Charitable/Religious Institution; quashed premature recovery notices; ordered payment in installments within six months.

Poornaprajna Education Centre Vs the Bangalore… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.51130 OF 2019 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATION CENTRE C.A.SITE NO.48, NEW THIPPASANDRA HAL 3^RD STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI S K BHAT AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO. 576, 16^TH B MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 034.

¶9

UDUPI SRI ADMAR MUTT EDUCATION COUNCIL, NO.4, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 080. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.KEPU SRIHARI.

¶10

… PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING REFERENCE NO.371/11 DTD.20.12.2011 REVISING THE LEASE AMOUNTS FOR ALLOTMENT AND RENEWAL OF CA SITES (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DTD.13.1.2012 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B).

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner, an Educational Institution founded and run by a

¶22

Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, seeks to call in question inter alia the vires of clause (b) of sub-Rule(4) of Rule 8 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civil Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, as being discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Quashment of BDA Resolution

¶23

¶24

dated 13.01.2012 and consequent Communication dated 21.08.2014 which collectively have the effect of requiring the petitioner to pay a higher rental value for the sites granted to it earlier on lease basis and renewed subsequently has also been sought for. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court vehemently argues for the invalidation of impugned instrument of law as it seeks to unjustifiably classify the allottee educational institutions on the basis of language alone.

¶25

Learned AGA appearing for the State and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA resist the Writ Petition contending that it is ordained policy of the State as promulgated in the impugned Rule itself that the allottee of sites for `having Kannada medium should be shown some concession qua those who run the schools in other media; the Rule in question has been framed in 1982 to promote Kannada Language & culture and therefore cannot be said to be discriminatory. They also contend that, court need not undertake the examination of vires of impugned Rule since case of the Petitioner lies in other

¶26

¶27

conspectus. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶29

(a) It has been a settled position of constitutional jurisprudence that the Court will not decide constitutional question if a case is capable of decided on other grounds vide ‘Constitutional Law of India’, by H M Servai, 4^th Edition Vol-I, Page 261 : Therefore the Court has to ascertain first whether it has to undertake examination of constitutional validity of the impugned Rule, as rightly submitted by learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA and the learned AGA. The BDA Resolution No.371/11 dated 20.12.2011 at para III speaks of two categories of institutions, namely the Educational Institutions running the schools only in Kannada Medium ‘registered under the Societies Act’ on the one hand and the Religious & Charitable Institutions ‘registered under the Societies

¶30

¶31

Act’, on the other. This Court is broadly in agreement with their submission that even in terms of this Resolution coupled with the subsequent Commissioner’s Order dated 13.01.2012, some reprieve can be granted to the petitioner without undertaking examination of the vires of the Rule in question.

¶32

(b) There is force in the submission of learned counsel

¶33

for the Petitioner that the very Resolution dated 20.12.2011 at Annexure-A speaks of several categories of allottees of the sites and two of them happen to be the Educational Institutions running only Kannada Medium schools and the Religious & Charitable Institutions which also may run schools in other media. Should the petitioner answer the description of the 2^nd category, which arguably it does, the BDA can look into the grievance of the Petitioner if an appropriate representation in that regard is freshly made seeking concession in terms of subject Resolution itself followed by Commissioner’s Order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is justified in submitting that the petitioner institution being a charitable institution, the claim for concessional rates have to be accordingly considered keeping

¶34

¶35

in view the position projected and acted upon by the BDA in the original grant of the lease.

¶36

(c) Learned Panel Counsel for the BDA rightly hastens to add that the petitioner is not justified in not making any payment of the amount even otherwise payable, assuming that he falls within the Concession Category. To this, learned counsel for the Petitioner retorts that his client – Institution has been unhesitatingly admitting students allotted by the Government under the RTE Quota and on that itself it has been incurring a very huge expenditure, a part of that being reimbursed, notwithstanding. It is really appreciable that the Petitioner – Institution has been catering to the educational needs of the society substantially on no profit basis. Learned counsel in all fairness also submits that his client would make the payment in respect of the lease in question, presently in terms of Para III of the subject BDA Resolution, should a reasonable time be granted, regard being had to hugeness of the demand made. This is really appreciable.

¶37

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in

¶39

part and the following reliefs are granted:

¶40

i) Petitioner is permitted to make a comprehensive representation in terms of category III of BDA Resolution dated 20.12.2011 coupled with BDA Commissioner’s Order dated 13.01.2012 respectively at Annexures A & B seeking concessional rates that avail for the category of Charitable & Religious Institutions registered under the law relating to Societies, within a period of eight weeks.

¶41

ii) Till the said application is made as above and considered by the BDA and the decision to be taken thereon is communicated to the Petitioner, no coercive action for recovery of other amount towards renewal of lease shall be taken, pursuant to impugned communication/notices, that are liable to be and accordingly quashed, as being premature.

¶42

iii) It is made clear that the amount as calculated at the rates specified in category III of BDA Resolution dated 20.11.2011 at Annexure A has to be paid by the Petitioner in six equivalized monthly installments, on the basis of its own reasonable classification; the first of the installments shall begin from 1^st February, 2023. It is open to the BDA to consider request of the Petitioner for relaxation or elongation of installment period and not the amount.

¶43

¶44

iv) It is open to the Respondent – BDA to solicity any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner as are required for due consideration of Petitioner’s Representation.

¶45

It hardly needs to be stated that in the event the representation is rejected, it is open to the petitioner to lay a challenge thereto and all grounds including those which are taken up in the writ petition are kept open.

¶46

Costs made easy.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Snb/

Poornaprajna Education Centre v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poornaprajna Education Centre v. the Bangalore Development Authority

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 P Mallika Vs the Commissioner

Sri M Jairaj Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Official Liquidator Vs Sri Naveen Prasad T a

Sri H Chandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Sumathi Vs the Commissioner

Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy Vs the Commissioner