IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.4730 OF 2017 (GM – BWSSB) BETWEEN:
IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, WITH ITS OFFICE AT CORPORATE TOWER B (B9), DIAMOND DISTRICT, 150, AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 008. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NOW MR.ZIAULLA SHERIFF.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.8, WATER SUPPLY AND SANITARY SUB DIVISION (SOUTH), BENGALURU.
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 081.
4. BENGALURU HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA FOR HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADVOCATES FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED;
R4 NOTICE DISPENSED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 9251/2009 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to granting liberty to respondent nos.1 to 3 therein to reconsider the process relating to demand for interest and penalty, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant submits that question of granting liberty is inappropriate. The demand having been set aside, the penalty also requires to be set aside.
3. However, the same is disputed by Sri. M.S. Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the learned Single Judge has granted liberty by holding that demand for interest and penalty is without following the procedure and without regard to the factual aspects.
6. In the absence of any grounds, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error so far as this issue is concerned, but considered the factual aspect and procedure in law.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
The respondent nos.1 to 3 are at liberty to proceed further.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Np/-