Sri Srinivas N S Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO. UDD 3 TTP 2015, DATED 25/02/2020 (ANNEXURE-D) INSOFAR AS THE PETITONER IS CONCERNED, INSERTED RULES 37-A AND 37-C ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs.

¶31

"a) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015, dated 25/02/2020 (Annexure-D) insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C are concerned:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:24797 WP No. 19908 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

b) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 18/01/2007 (Annexure-E) in so far as petitioner concern and the corrigendum order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, issued by the Respondent No.2, dated 28/02/2007 (Annexure-F) mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

¶36

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com. /SUT/0105/25-26 dated 22/06/2025 issued by Respondent No.3 in so far as Labour Cess for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/-.

¶37

d) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a Certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com. /SUT/0105/25-26 dated 22/06/2025 issued by Respondent No.3 in so far levy of ground rent for a sum of Rs.1,28,502/-.

¶38

e) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a Certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./SUT/0105/25-26 dated 22/06/2025 issued by Respondent No.3 in so far as Betterment fee of a sum of Rs.18,480/-, for building, Scrutiny Fee for a

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:24797 WP No. 19908 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

sum of Rs.9,787/and License fee a sum of Rs.1,95,603/-.

¶43

f) Declare that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (BBMP) have no authority to collect the taxes under the guise of collection of license fee cess and other fees under various heads based on arbitrary rates and values:

¶44

g) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to collect fees as specified in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye Laws, 2003 only:

¶45

h) And grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, based on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice equity."

¶46

The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein referred to as “M/s Sapthagiri Shelters”) as well as W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein referred to as “Sunderam Shetty”), have comprehensively adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:24797 WP No. 19908 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the

¶51

Co-ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. and similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Coordinate Bench struck down the Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid.

¶52

The issues raised in the present writ petition are

¶53

squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:24797 WP No. 19908 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶58

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 22.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.

¶62

(iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.

¶63

(iv) Respondent - BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioners' application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:24797 WP No. 19908 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval of the plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

¶68

(vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment.

¶69

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶70

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶71

NBM

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri Srinivas N S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas N S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chef Talk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Channappa B M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri E Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Balasubramanya Vs the Mysore City Corporation

Janardhan Rao Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Karim Amzad Khan Vs State of Karnataka