Allowed

M/S B M Habitat v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/2205/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Municipality's ban on charging parking fees in private commercial complexes. The Court held that while a license under Section 351 is required to operate parking for third parties, the Municipality cannot impose a blanket restriction on charging reasonable fees for upkeep. The impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the order dated 20.11.2017, resolution dated 06.03.2017, and direction dated 30.05.2017.

M/S B M Habitat Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2205 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S B M HABITAT NO.2276/2A, D22/A, GOKULAM ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE 570 004 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. DEEPAK S LULLA S/O SHYAM SINGH LULLA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSORE-570024.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PRESIDENT

¶15

TOWN PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENT STANDING COMMITTEE

¶16

MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYOSRE-570024.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA/VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP FOR R3; SRI. GOURAV G.K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2017 IN NU.MNP/NYS/TA(11)912/201718 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE RESOLUTION PASED IN MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE DATED 30.05.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs;

¶27

a. Call for records.

¶28

b. Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order passed by the 1^st Respondent dated 20.11.2017 in Nu.MNP/NYS/Ta(11)912/2017-18 vide Annexure-A and the resolution passed in Minutes of Meetings of the 2^nd Respondent dated 06.03.2017 vide Annexure-B and also the direction issued in the General Body Meeting of Mysore Mahanagara Palike dated 30.05.2017 vide Annexure-C with respect to the petitioners are concerned.

¶29

c. Direct the Respondents to pay the cost of these proceedings.

¶30

d. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 6.3.2017 had passed a resolution that the commercial complexes under Mysore Mahanagar Palike shall not charge any parking fees and they should display the board to that extent, since they did not have any license to run a parking business or the like.

¶33

In pursuance of the said resolution, the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 20.11.2017 issued a direction to the petitioner and other commercial complex owners in Mysore not to charge any fees for vehicles which are parked in their premises.

¶34

The submission of Sri.S.Rajashekar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s Mall being a private property, any person making use of the parking facility would have to make payment of the due amounts as may be charged by the petitioner and this is for the upkeep of the parking facilities and other common areas. As regards the said parking

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶36

areas, the petitioner making payment of taxes. The respondents cannot come in the way of the petitioner charging any particular amount in respect of such parking.

¶37

Sri.Gaurav.G.K., learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has not applied for and/or obtained license in terms of Section 351 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and without such license being granted, the petitioner cannot charge any amount for parking since that business is not authorized.

¶38

Learned HCGP has produced the Traffic Parking Policy 2.0 for Bangalore which could be adopted by the Mysore Mahanagara Palike by making suitable amendments, if they so choose.

¶39

In this regard, Sri.Gaurav.G.K., learned counsel for Mysore Mahanagara Palike submits that the same would be considered and after a study is made, suitable changes if suggested would be made and the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶41

parking policy adopted by the Mysore Mahanagara Palike.

¶42

Heard Sri.S.Rajashekar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.Gourav.G.K., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers.

¶43

It is clear that, the Mysore Mahanagara Palike does not have any particular policy restricting the charging of any fees insofar as common parking is concerned in the said Mall.

¶44

Be that as it may, it is also required for the Mall to provide parking. Since the plan sanction itself provides for suitable number of car parking spaces on the basis of the construction which have been put up. This car and/or two-wheeler parking being required for the purpose of use of the commercial building. Since, third parties are going to use the said building and not the owner or the occupants themselves, it would be required of the petitioner to

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶46

obtain necessary permission and/or license under Section 351 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Since, without doing so third parties cannot be made use of this property for parking.

¶47

In that view of the matter, subject to any rules that may be framed by the Mysore Mahanagara Palike as regards the charges for the parking and/or any other rules pertaining there to, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, there cannot be any restriction which can be imposed by the respondents on the petitioner from charging a reasonable fee for parking. As regards this, Sri.S.Rajashekar., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges which have been levied are only to see to it that the parking areas are not misused and they are genuinely used by genuine customers who have made any purchase at any of the shops in the Mall, the car-parking charges are redeemed and such customers could not be charged any amount.

¶48

In that view of the matter, I pass the following;

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:46525 WP No. 2205 of 2018

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶53

ii. A certiorari is issued, the order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 20.11.2017 in Nu.MNP/NYS/Ta(11)912/2017-18 at AnnexureA and the resolution passed in Minutes of Meetings of the Respondent No.2 dated 06.03.2017 at Annexure-B and also the direction issued in the General Body Meeting of Mysore Mahanagara Palike dated 30.05.2017 at Annexure-C are quashed.

¶54

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

M/S B M Habitat v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S B M Habitat 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. J. Santosh Vs State Bank of India

S Umapathi Vs the Secretary

S Umapathi Vs Central Information Commission

Smt Kanakavalli.P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mustak Dogrisab Vs the State of Karnataka

St Paul'S School Vs the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of