IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.25642/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. MANGALYA CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.92, KEDIA ARCADE INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. HARISH L MIRPURI (BY SRI RAWLEY MUDDAPPA, ADV.) AND:
THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA NO.49, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE -560 001 REP. BY THE MEMBER-SECRETARY (BY SRI NATARAJU T, ADV.) ... PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND TO THE PETITIONER THE GUARANTEE MONEY OF RS.10,00,000/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS ONLY) DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to refund to the petitioner the Guarantee money of Rs.10,00,000/- and in that regard direct them to pay interest.
2. The petitioner while seeking consent for establishment to construct a residential apartment had complied with the conditions and in that regard had deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as Guarantee money which was a requirement to construct the Sewage Treatment Plant and also Solid Waste Organic Converter in the project site. The petitioner is stated to have complied with the said condition and in that view, has therefore addressed a communication dated 29.09.2015 and followed it up with a legal notice dated 06.01.2016 seeking refund of the said amount. The communication and the notice are at Annexures-D and E to the petition. Since the respondents have not considered the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Having taken note of the same, a positive mandamus to return the amount in the manner as sought in the instant petition would not arise for consideration at this point in time. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had addressed a communication and also got issued a legal notice, the fact as to whether the petitioner has complied with the requirement as per the Regulations and the manner in which the refund is to be made are all aspects which are required to be taken note by the respondents and a decision is to be taken in that regard.
4. Needless to mention that on such consideration if it is found that the respondents are required to return the deposit, steps shall also be taken thereafter in accordance with law .
Hence, with a direction to the respondents to the said effect to take note of the communication and the legal notice and thereafter take a decision in that regard within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms