IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.54535 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
M/S. BMM ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 114, DANAPUR VILLAGE HOSAPETE-582 333 BALLARI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 101, 1ST FLOOR, PRIDE ELITE NO.10 MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-PR MR. SILAS NERELLA.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI: C.K. NANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
3. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
4. MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: BHANUPRAKASH V.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI: M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND ORDER DATED 08.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-A); DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TOLL FEE COLLECTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER IN RELATION TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF IRON ORE BETWEEN THE PERIOD FROM JULY 2012 TO MAY 2014 (AS SET OUT IN ANNEXURE-H) ALONG WITH INTEREST THEREON AND ETC., ***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the minutes of meeting and the order dated 08.08.2017 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, certain writ petitioners filed Writ Petition No.7693 of 2011 and connected matters in effect to declare that the toll fee/road tax on lorries carrying iron ore collected by the State as illegal. By a considered order, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 18.01.2014 allowed the writ petition in part and the impugned Government order and corrigendum were quashed. However, it was held that the amount collected as toll fee/tax to be refunded in pursuance of the impugned notification having been spent towards the construction, development and maintenance of the roads etc., need not be refunded. The same was challenged by one of the writ petitioners in Writ Appeal No.574 of 2014. By the order dated 07.07.2014, the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.63494 of 2016 seeking to quash the letter dated 04.04.2016 issued by respondent No.3 therein and other consequential orders. The said impugned letter is to the effect of refund.
3. The plea of the petitioner is that, the Division Bench by its order dated 12.06.2017, took note of the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge and as affirmed by the learned Division Bench, held that it is a matter of calculation and all the stake holders must sit together to find out as to what amount is to be refunded to the writ petitioners. Consequence of the said minutes of meeting has been questioned in the instant petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded in the minutes of the meeting is erroneous. That he is entitled for refund in law.
5. The same is disputed to by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. However, on hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. Ostensibly, the right of the petitioner emanates from the order of the Division Bench dated 12.06.2017 in Writ Petition No.63494 of 2016. The writ petitioner herein had not challenged the earlier calculation of road tax by the State. He was not a party to the earlier round of writ petition. The request for refund of toll fee was rejected in Writ Petition No.63494 of 2016 filed by him. The observations made by the Division Bench therein was that, it is a matter of calculation and all the stake holders must sit together to find out as to what amount is to be refunded to the writ petitioners. When the Division Bench themselves have accepted the earlier order of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench, no order contrary to the said order could be passed. Therefore, we find that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel to this portion of the order is misconceived. If at all the petitioner is entitled for any refund as contended by him, he is at liberty to prosecute such proceedings as is available to him in law. So far as the instant proceedings are concerned, no right could emanate to the writ petitioner in terms of the order of the Division Bench dated 12.06.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.63494 of 2016.
Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The petitioner is always at liberty to pursue such remedy as available in law.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-