IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS. 59757-59760/2015 & 59775-59781/2015 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN:
1. IBNII SPA RESORT A PROPRIETRARY CONCERN, AT IBBANIVALAVADI VILLAGE, BOIKERI POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRORPRIETOR CAPT. D.A.SEBASTIAN.
2. CAPT.D.A. SEBASTIAN S/O LATE MR.VERGHESE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, IBNII SPA RESORT, AT IBBANIVALAVADI VILLAGE, BOIKERI POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (By SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL-ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KADAGADALU GRAM PANCHAYAT MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 212. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KADAGADALU GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 212.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MADIKERI TALUK PANCHAYAT, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
5. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL GENERAL & SOCIAL SECTOR AUDIT - LOCAL BODIES AUDIT BHAVAN, NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 .... RESPONDENTS (By SMT.B.P.RADHA:AGA FOR R1, BY SRI.RAJARAM S:ADV.FOR R2&R3, CGSC FOR R5, R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING CALL FOR RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS PROJECT MORE PARTICULARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN LEVYING OF TAXES, ON BUILDING AND VACANT LAND, INCLUDING THE VARIOUS AUDIT ENQUIRY REPORTS ISSUED BY THE R- 5 TO THE R-4 AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID RESOLUTIONS/DEMAND NOTICES OF THE R-2 BASED ON THE VARIOUS AUDIT ENQUIRIES.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo dated 20.12.2017 stating that they have paid all taxes to the respondent-Panchayath.
2. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Said submission of the learned counsel for both the parties as well as memo is also placed on record.
4. In view of the above submission and memo, quashing of demands made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also impugned orders do not arise.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-