Sri. C. Shakir Abdul Haq Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. ARO(JBN)W-88/PR-522/2024-25 DTD. 25.02.2025 AND NO. ARO(JBN)/W-83/PR-523/2024-25 DTD.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27825 WP No. 7597 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

25.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (i.e. ANNX-A AND A-1) AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUST AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In the captioned petition, the petitioner is assailing the demand notices dated 25.02.2025, issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A and A1.

¶24

The primary grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to the legality and validity of the impugned demand notices dated 25.02.2025 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexures-A and A1). The petitioner contends that the said demand notices are vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement prescribed under sub-section (13) of Section 144 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to the petitioner, before issuing any such demand notice for

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27825 WP No. 7597 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

payment of property tax or reassessment thereof, a joint inspection by the BBMP officials, as contemplated under the said provision, is a condition precedent. The petitioner submits that in the absence of such an inspection, the issuance of the demand notices is patently illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

In support of this contention, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.2042/2024, wherein this Court, in a similar fact scenario, quashed a demand notice issued without conducting the joint inspection mandated under Section 144(13) of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the same reasoning and principle must be applied in the present case as well.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the BBMP. Perused the records available on file.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27825 WP No. 7597 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

On examining the material on record, it is evident

¶33

that the impugned demand notices in the present case were initially issued without adhering to the statutory requirement of conducting a joint inspection as mandated under sub-section (13) of Section 144 of the Act. However, it is relevant to note that, pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court in the present proceedings vide order dated 21.04.2025, the BBMP officials have subsequently carried out a joint inspection of the subject property and have now placed on record the joint inspection report.

¶34

In light of the aforesaid factual development, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned demand notices, having been issued prior to the conduct of the mandatory joint inspection, suffer from procedural irregularity and are liable to be quashed. It is trite law that where a statute prescribes a procedure for taking a particular action, the same must be scrupulously followed. Since the requirement of a joint inspection under Section

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27825 WP No. 7597 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

144(13) of the Act is now complied with post facto, BBMP

¶38

is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a demand notice, if warranted, based on the joint inspection report now available on record. If such a notice is issued, it is open for the petitioner to contest the same in accordance with law and raise all contentions available to him on merits.

¶39

In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶42

ii. The impugned demand notices dated 25.02.2025 issued by respondent No.2, produced at Annexures-A and A1, are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶43

iii. Liberty is reserved to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue a fresh demand notice, if so advised, based on the joint inspection report secured pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 21.04.2025;

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:27825 WP No. 7597 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

iv. In the event a fresh demand notice is issued, it is open for the petitioner to submit his objections and contest the same before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law;

¶48

v. All contentions of both parties on merits are left open.

¶49

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

Sri. C. Shakir Abdul Haq v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. Shakir Abdul Haq v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Shri Manju G Gowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis Vs Sri.Hari

Mathrushree Mutyalaya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Smt R Indrani Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Cherubs Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Megharaj Vs the State of Karnataka