IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51964/2013 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
H.R. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.400, 3RD MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SECRETARY KARNATAKA EDUCATION BOARD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
3. THE CHAIRMAN BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.30.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE R3 IN NO.MUAA- AA-KA/SIGU-10/2073/2013-14 VIDE ANNEX-A TO THIS W.P. ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner. None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner even on 28.02.2019.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and2.
Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Record perused.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of endorsement dated 30.08.2013 by which the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of `6,49,496/- for illegal occupation of the accommodation allotted to him for the period from 01.10.2006 till 27.06.2010.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service record as 14.08.1948. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3 on 01.09.1978. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2006. The petitioner initiated proceedings for alteration of his date of birth which eventually was decided against the petitioner. However, despite repeated reminders, the petitioner did not vacate the accommodation which was allotted to him by the respondent No.3 and eventually he vacated the aforesaid accommodation on 27.06.2010. The respondent No.3, under the provisions of the Allotment of Government Buildings for use as residences of Government Servants and levy of Licence Fee Rules, 2002 and in particular Rule 29(2) of the aforesaid Rules, computed the amount due and payable by the petitioner and the same was quantified at `6,49,496/-. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed to pay the aforesaid amount by communication dated 30.08.2013.
4. From perusal of the grounds in the petition, it is evident that the challenge to the demand notice has been made on the ground that the case of the petitioner regarding rectification of the date of birth was pending and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to occupy the accommodation. Admittedly, the proceeding which was initiated by the petitioner seeking rectification of the date of birth, have been concluded against him and the matter has attained finality. Therefore, the impugned demand notice by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of `6,49,496/- for the purpose of unauthorized occupation of the residence in question, does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is accordingly, rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE RV CT-HR