IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3207 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DODDATHOGUR GRAM PANCHAYAT KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY, DODDATHOGUR, BENGALURU-560 100, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
2. PRESIDENT DODDATHOGUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY DODDATHOGUR, BENGALURU-560 100.
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICER OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BENGALURU DIVISION, PWD ANNEX BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 305, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2 (ABSENT);
SRI LAXMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-3 TO R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.36894 OF 2016 (LB-RES) DATED 11.07.2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the interim order dated 11.07.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.36894 of 2016, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demand of Rs.54,78,250/-, with the respondent– Grama Panchayat, the petitioner filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellants have since paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the Public Works Department, that the demand made by the respondent-Grama Panchayat, is illegal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing to deposit 50% of the amount involved.
3. The said contention is disputed to by the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is absent.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do find no merit in this appeal. The contention of the appellant on merit would necessarily have to be considered by the learned Single Judge. Presently, it is suffice to hold that the demand of Rs.54,78,250/-, towards road cutting charges for laying optical fibers cables, has been raised by the respondent – Grama Pachayath on a property owned by them. The learned Single Judge being enlightened about the cost of the project, directed 50% of the payment of the amount, which will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition.
5. We are of the considered view that the entire demand has been scaled down at the stage of interim order. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM