Partly allowed

Manjunath Babu K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024WP/14907/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging BBMP building bye-law levies and a demand notice was disposed of following an earlier coordinate-bench order holding such fees ultra vires; the notice was partly quashed, with labour cess remaining payable subject to setoff.

What did the court decide?

Demand notice quashed in respect of Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Security Deposit and Lake Rejuvenation Fee; labour cess demand retained.

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14907 OF 2020 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH BABU K S/O LATE A KRISHNAPPA AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT 10/1, 2ND MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, CHAIRMAN HOUSE GORAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE - 560 022.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SMT. NIYATHI A, HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶17

BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶18

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (ADTP) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHESHADRIPURAM SAMPIGE ROAD, BHASHYAM PARK BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. CHANDINI S. HCGP FOR R1;

¶21

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE BYE-LAW 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 2003 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA-VIRES VIDE ANNX-B; QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 04.12.2020 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-3.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 04.12.2020 ISSUEDBY THE R-3.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶24

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:

¶30

i. For a Writ declaring the Bye- Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Byelaws, 2003 unconstitutional, illegal and ultra- vires (Annexure 'B').

¶31

ii. For a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Demand Notice dated 04.12.2020 bearing No. BBMP/ Ad. Com/ WST/ 0260/20-21 (Annexure'A') issued by the 3^rd Respondent."

¶32

However, the unanimous submission is that the petition will have to be disposed of in the light of this Court's order in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected matters. The operative portion of this Court's order in the aforesaid writ petitions reads as under:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(a) All the Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶35

(b) The byelaws under which Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶38

Fee, Security Deposit are all held ultravires the Act and are resultantly rendered unenforceable.

¶39

(c) The Circular bearing No. 3 20/2015-16 dated 04.09.2015 stands quashed. (d) The Circular bearing 2016 dated 27.01.2017 and the Circular bearing No. 1533/2016-17 dated 30.03.2017 demanding Lake Rejuvenation Fee are quashed.

¶40

(e) Imposition of labour cess under the Welfare Cess Act is upheld, but its demand for payment upfront in terms of Government Orders dated 18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007 stands quashed.

¶41

(f) The State or the BBMP is not precluded from bringing in the impugned levies under the provisions of the Act or the Rules by making suitable amendments to the Act and the Rules.

¶42

(g) Petitioners in all these petitions who have deposited certain amounts in terms of the interim order passed by this Court before this Court are entitled to refund of the amounts so deposited.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶44

(h) Insofar as refund in other cases who have paid to the Corporation under protest, they shall be entitled to such refund only if the same is not collected from the consumers of the apartments, businesses as the case would be.

¶45

(i) Insofar as all other payments made, they would all be at liberty to give representation to this BBMP and the BBMP would consider the refund of the amounts, in accordance with law and the findings of this Court.

¶46

(j) If representations are made by the petitioners for refund, the BBMP shall pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date of such representations.

¶47

In view of disposal of the petitions, all pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed."

¶48

In terms of this order, it is indisputable that the impugned demand notice insofar as demand for Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Security Deposit and Lake Rejuvenation Fee must yield, and hence, the petition is allowed in part quashing the demand notice observing that the petitioner will be liable to answer the demand for

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:48507 WP No. 14907 of 2020

¶51

Labour Cess in terms of this notice. The respondents are reserved with liberty to initiate action for recovery of such cess, subject to setoff of the amount already paid.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

Manjunath Babu K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath Babu K v. 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

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike