Allowed

M/S Radiance Outdoor Advertising v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/6250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a BBMP demand notice for annual advertisement hoarding charges and the Advertisement Bye-Laws, 2006. Following its earlier batch order in W.P.No.52699/2016, the Court quashed the notice and remanded the matter to the Assistant Revenue Officer for fresh consideration after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

Demand notice dated 31.08.2016 quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration with opportunity to file objections and be heard.

M/S Radiance Outdoor Advertising Vs Bruhath… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6250 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S RADIANCE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 38 NAL LAYOUT, EAST END MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SYED HAMID MOHSIN S/O SYED ABDUL SALAM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AMIT A MANDGI.,ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶11

AND:

¶12

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER COURT OF KARNATAKA (ADVERTISEMENT) SOUTH ZONE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER SHANTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560027.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1TO R3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED:31.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,69,136.96/- TOWARDS THE ANNUAL CHARGES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING FROM 2013-14 TO 2015-16 ALONG WITH PENALTY AND INTEREST CALCULATED AT 18%P.A. AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

When the matter was listed on 31.05.2024, none

¶23

appeared for the petitioner. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner.

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the demand notice dated 31.08.2016 vide Annexure-A issued by respondents for annual charges from the Assessment Years commencing from 2013-14 to 2015-16 in respect of advertisement hoarding and also challenging the Advertisement Bye-Laws, 2006.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the batch of petitions in W.P.No.52699/2016 and connected matters disposed of on 19.07.2023 arising out of the similar issue, this Court has remanded the matters to the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers, who have issued demand notices, for fresh consideration. In terms of the above, the present writ petition may be disposed of.

¶27

This Court in the batch of petitions in W.P.No.52699/2016 and connected matters disposed of on 19.07.2023 arising out of similar issues, has remanded the matters to the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers, who have issued demand notices, for fresh consideration. Paragraph No.4 of the said order reads as follows:

¶28

“4. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶30

I. Wherever orders have been passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer or the Competent Authority, the same are set aside.

¶31

II. In respect of all other matters where challenges have been raised to the demand notices, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶32

III. All these matters stand remanded back to the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers who have issued demand notices/orders for re-consideration afresh. Opportunity shall be granted to the writ petitioners to file written objections and thereafter, the parties shall be heard and orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶33

IV. The petitioners herein are permitted to file written objections before the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers who have issued the demand notices/orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Accordingly, concerned officers shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶36

thereafter, proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.”

¶37

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

a. The writ petition is allowed .

¶40

b. Impugned notice dated 31.08.2016 vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶41

c. The matter stands remitted back to respondent No.3 with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a written objection. After hearing the parties, respondent No.3 shall pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶42

d. The petitioner is permitted to file an objection before the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/competent officers, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21911 WP No. 6250 of 2017

¶44

e. The concerned officers shall afford an

¶45

opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter, proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.”

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

M/S Radiance Outdoor Advertising v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Radiance Outdoor Advertising v. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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

Shaik Ahmed Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike

Shubh Enclave Site Owners Association Vs Seeta Dega

D M Holdings Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakme Lever Private Limtied Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt Kavya K M Vs Sri H J Yashodhara Gowda

Smt. H R Gayathri Devi Vs the State of Karnataka