Biligiriyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 17.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - L AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - M ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The captioned petition is filed seeking following

¶28

reliefs:

¶29

WHEREFORE, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ petition by quashing the impugned notice bearing no. £ÀA.¨ÉÊ UÁæ ¥ÀA/PÉgÉ ºÀgÁdÄ /08/2017-18 dated 17.10.2017 vide ANNEXURE-L, and consequently quash the endorsement bearing no. £ÀA.¨ÉÊ UÁæ ¥ÀA/PÉgÉ ºÀgÁdÄ /09/201718 dated 04.11.2017 vide ANNEXURE-M issued by the 2^nd respondent by issuing the writ of certiorari and issue such other order, writ or directions as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19713 WP No. 58297 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner has called in question the

¶34

endorsement dated 04.11.2017 issued by respondent No.2/Grama Panchayat, as per Annexure-M, whereby his request for rebate of the principal bid amount for the year 2017-18 was declined. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the fact that despite placing reliance on the Government Order dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-G) and the drought notification at Annexure-H,under which Ramanagara Taluk was declared droughtaffected,respondent No.2 proceeded to reject his representation without due consideration.

¶35

The petitioner, who was the successful bidder for conducting fishery activities in Byramangala Lake for a five-year term commencing from 31.10.2013, asserts that due to severe drought prevailing in Ramanagara Taluk during 2017-18, the lake in question dried up, thereby rendering fishing operations commercially unviable. The petitioner, therefore, sought rebate and also requested

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19713 WP No. 58297 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

adjustment of the amount already deposited for the

¶39

preceding year.

¶40

A perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-M indicates that respondent No.2/Grama Panchayat rejected the petitioner’s request on the premise that Vrushabhavathi Lake has perennial water supply and has never dried up. This approach adopted by respondent No.2 is evidently flawed inasmuch as the petitioner was awarded fishery rights in Byramangala Lake, and not in Vrushabhavathi Lake. It is apparent that respondent No.2 has misconstrued the factual matrix and declined relief on irrelevant considerations.

¶41

Respondent No.2 has not filed any statement of objections. Even otherwise, a plain reading of Annexure-M suggests a clear non-application of mind. The core issue whether Byramangala Lake was affected due to drought conditions during the relevant year has not been examined. Instead, reliance is erroneously placed on the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19713 WP No. 58297 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

water levels in an altogether different lake. This renders the impugned endorsement unsustainable in law.

¶45

In the absence of any proper inquiry or

¶46

consideration of material facts, the action of respondent No.2 is arbitrary and perverse. It is therefore crucial that respondent No.2 conducts a fresh enquiry to ascertain whether Byramangala Lake had indeed dried up during 2017-18 due to the drought. In doing so, respondent No.2 may take assistance from satellite imagery or any other reliable record to verify the status of the lake during the relevant period. The petitioner shall also be permitted to place on record such documents and materials that support his claim for rebate as per the Government Order at Annexure-G.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 04.11.2017 (Annexure-M) is hereby

¶50

quashed.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19713 WP No. 58297 of 2017

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2/Grama Panchayat for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶54

The demand notice issued vide Annexure-L shall remain in abeyance until conclusion of the fresh enquiry.

¶55

iv. It is further directed that in the event the enquiry concludes in favour of the petitioner, the sum of `4,04,916/- already deposited by him under protest shall be refunded forthwith along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

¶56

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

HDK

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CL:SN

Biligiriyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biligiriyappa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Rathnakar Shenoy Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Shilpa Madhu Vs the Town Municipal Council

Smt Shailaja H Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nasrina Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anitha J Vs the Commissioner