IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1713/2019 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
M/S. BASANT RESORTS & HOTELS (I) PVT., LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI BASANKUMAR PATIL, S/O T.K.PATIL, AGED 72 YEARS, BASANTH GROUP OF COMPANIES, NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, BWS & SB SUB DIVISION (CENTRAL), CHIKKALALBAGH, BENGALURU-560 053.
…RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE CUM BILL DTD 04.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE ERSTWHILE OWNER SRI.
B. SREENIVASA IYANGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the demand notice dated 04.01.2019 issued in the name of the erstwhile owner namely Sri B. Srinivas Iyengar.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had purchased the property in question in a public auction and sale deed was executed in its favour on 07.01.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had issued a bill which is due and payable by the erstwhile owner of the property to the tune of Rs.7,99,619/-.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved, has submitted a representation to the Assistant Executive Engineer and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation by fixing a time limit.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 13.12.2018 contained in Annexure-E shall be decided by the Assistant Executive Engineer, in accordance with law, by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties including the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ca