IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50191/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI B.C. GOPALA REDDY S/O SRI CHIKKABHADRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.1320, 11TH CROSS ROAD, 21ST B MAIN ROAD, H S R SECTOR 1 BENGALURU-560034 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 2 . THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WEST DIVISION, H.S.R. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BENGALURU-560102 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI G.M.ANAND, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE (UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the demand notice (undated) issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure – C to the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to renew licence in respect of the subject property by adjusting the excess amount paid by the petitioner towards future fees.
2. The petitioner has been granted with the licence in respect of the Premises No.4GF, measuring 182.49 square meters i.e., 1,905 sq.ft. in Hosur – Sarjapura Road, H.S.R. BDA Complex, Bangalore, fixing rent as Rs.1,01,000/- per month as licence fees with the refundable deposit amount of Rs.10,10,000/-. It is contended that the petitioner has deposited the said amount and the letter of licence deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that indeed he has paid excess amount of Rs.33,00,955/- to the respondents and also the security deposit of amount of Rs.10,10,000/- is also with the respondents, however now respondent No.2 has illegally demanded an amount of Rs.46,40,454/- from the petitioner. The respondents have refused to consider the explanation putforth by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this court challenging the said final demand notice calling upon the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.46,40,454/- towards arrears of licence fee relating to the subject property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that the respondent – Authorities have not fairly considered the actual payment of licence fee paid by the petitioner. On the contrary, a huge liability has been created and the demand has been raised without any basis. Reference is made to the calculation sheet furnished at Annexure – B to the writ petition.
4. The factual aspects inasmuch as the arrears of licence fee said to have been made by the petitioner requires to be re-considered by respondent No.2 in terms of the licence deed dated 24.08.2006 and statement showing the details of payment of licence fees paid in respect of the subject property by the petitioner at Annexure – B.
5. Thus, the petitioner shall consider the final notice at Annexure – C as the show-cause notice and submit his reply/objections before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. On receipt of such reply/objections, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of filing of the reply/objections to the show-cause notice.
No precipitative action shall be taken till the final decision is taken in the matter.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR