IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7323 OF 2019 (GM-RES) AND WRIT PETITION NOs.12170-12177 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. S. M. Jamal, S/o S. M. Abdulla, Aged about 60 years, Shop No.V-1, V-Stalls, Behind Old SBI Building, Near HAL Market, Old Township, Bengaluru – 560 017.
2. Smt. Krishnaveni, Aged about 55 years, Shop No.1, Venugopal Swamy Temple Road, Near HAL Market, Old Township, Bengaluru – 560 017.
3. Sri. Arjuna R., Aged about 54 years, Shop No.V-8, Old SBI Building, Near HAL Market, Old Township, Bengaluru – 560 017.
4. Mr. Iqbal S.M., S/o Sri. S. M. Abdulla, Aged about 48 years, Shop No.05, Old SBI Building, Near HAL Market, Old Township, Bengaluru – 560 017.
5. Sri. Sriramulu, S/o Rajappa Naidu, Since deceased by his L.R. Sri. Ramesh Babu, S/o Sriramulu, Aged about years, Shop No.V-53, V- Stalls, Old SBI Building, Near HAL Market, Old Township, Bengaluru – 560 017.
(By Sri. Swamy M.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Defence, Ministry of Defence South Block, South Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 011.
… Petitioners 2. The Chairman & Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HAL Corporate Office, No.15/1, Cubbon Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Deputy Manager (HR), Legal & Estate, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Office of Legal & Estate Department, Facilities Management Division – HAL (BC), Old Airport Road, Vimanpura Post, Bengaluru – 560 017.
(ASG served and unrepresented) … Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the demand notices issued on 18.12.2018, 09.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019 and termination order dated 24.01.2019 by R-3 vide Annexures – L1 to L9 and etc., These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Swamy M.M., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. In these petitions, petitioners inter alia seek writ of certiorari for quashment of the demand notices dated 18.12.2018, 18.12.2018, 18.12.2018, 09.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 24.01.2019 contained in Annexures-L1 to L9 respectively issued by respondent No.3.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners are carrying on their business of their retail provision stores, bakery, fruit stalls etc., in the stalls, which have been allotted to them by respondent No.3. Petitioners are in occupation of the stalls as licencees. It is the case of the petitioners that unilaterally, the licence fee was revised with effect from 01.01.2017 without any intimation to the petitioners and demand notices have been issued on 18.12.2018, 18.12.2018, 18.12.2018, 09.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 11.01.2019, 24.01.2019 by which the licence fees are being demanded at the rate of `20,686/-, `2,902/-, `9,026/-, `7,441/-, `4,384/-, `4,384/-, `4,384/-, `2,340/- and `44,060 respectively.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with regard to their grievances, petitioners have submitted representations to the competent authority. However, the aforesaid representations have failed to evoke any response and the competent authority be directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is directed that the competent authority shall take an appropriate action on the representations submitted by the petitioners, which are pending consideration before it by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
7. Needless to state that till the decision on the representations is taken, no coercive action against the petitioners shall be taken.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-