Partly allowed

Raymond Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2023WP/51275/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand notice issued for an advertisement hoarding erected without permission. The petitioner argued they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. The court held that the principles of natural justice were violated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice dated 02.11.2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Revenue Officer to hear the petitioner and pass necessary orders.

Raymond Ltd. Vs the Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25174 WP No. 51275 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 51275 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

RAYMOND LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.156/H, NO.2, VILLAGE ZADGAON, RATNAGIRI - 415 612, MAHARASTRA AND ALSO A RETAIL SHOP AT: THE RAYMOND SHOP, SHOP NO.10, GROUND FLOOR, NETAJISUBASHCHANDRA BOSE BUILDING, (P.U. BUILDING) M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SHOP MANAGER SRI. SACHIN MUTTAPPA, S/O MEDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE,

¶11

BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, (EAST) MARKET OFFICE AT 20TH FLOOR,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:25174 WP No. 51275 of 2015

¶15

M.G. ROAD, P.U.B. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. N. R. JAGADEESWARA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED. 2.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 OF THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE UNDER SECTION 134 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1976 AND RULE 3 m[11] AND 6[3] OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BYELAW 2006 DEMANDING RS.1,56,000/- VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶22

The petitioner being a lessee in respect of shop No.10, Ground Floor, running a Ready-made apparel and accessories shop under name and style "The Raymond Shop" is aggrieved of the demand notice dated 02.11.2015 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Revenue Officer, Pre-Advertisement, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Bengaluru.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25174 WP No. 51275 of 2015

¶24

The respondent No.2-Assistant Revenue Officer,

¶25

appears to have passed the impugned order dated 02.11.2015 on the premise that an advertisement hoarding was erected without taking necessary permission from the BBMP, which is the local authority vested with the power to grant permission for display of advertisement board in the city of Bengaluru. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits it is apparent from the impugned order that the order has been passed exparte , without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the advertisement board was not put up by the petitioner.

¶26

That being the position, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have convinced the respondent No.2-Assistant Revenue Officer with regard to the same. However, since no notice was issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25174 WP No. 51275 of 2015

¶28

Having regard to the contentions raised in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.11.2015 at Annexure-A cannot be sustained, for the simple reason that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. The principles of natural justice are required to be followed by any officer entitled to pass an order as a quasi-judicial authority. Having regard to the facts narrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the Assistant Revenue Officer should have heard the petitioner before passing the order.

¶29

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is required to be partly allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed . The impugned order dated 02.11.2015 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Revenue Officer, Bengaluru is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:25174 WP No. 51275 of 2015

¶33

The matter is remitted back to the respondent

¶34

No.2-Assistant Revenue Officer, to hear the petitioner and

¶35

thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Raymond Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raymond Ltd. v. the Commissioner

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

Sri Suresh Kumar H Vs Chief Executive Officer

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri. Nanda S.K Vs the Commissioner

Mr K Venkatachalam Vs the Commissioner

Pavan Bhadraiah Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike

Shine Outdoor Media Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike