IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28875 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. BABU NAIK S/O NARAYANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NAGANAYAKANANA HATTI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. (By Mr. SAGAR B.B. ADV.) AND:
1. Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 9TH FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE-01 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT … PETITIONER CORPORATION LIMITED, GRR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577501.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. C. JAGADISH, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 29-01-2014 issued by the R-1 vide Annx-G. Direct the respondents to deliver possession of the vehicle to the petitioner in a road worthy condition forthwith and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 by which a sum of `33,450/- is demanded on account of warehousing charges. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver possession of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16-6746 to the petitioner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in the year 1998, had availed for the loan facility to purchase an ambassador car bearing registration No.KA-16-6746. Subsequently, the loan availed for by the petitioner from the respondent – Corporation was waived off and the petitioner was informed that he can take custody of the vehicle on as is where is basis. It is further submitted that by an order dated 29.01.2014, a sum of `33,450/- is being demanded from the petitioner towards parking / warehousing charges.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to two photographs at Annexures-E and E1 and submitted that the said photographs show that the vehicle has been parked in an open space and therefore, demand with regard to warehousing charges is unjust.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the demand made on behalf of the respondent – Corporation.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record. From perusal of the photographs annexed with the petition contained in Annexures-E and E1, it is evident that the vehicle of the petitioner is parked in an open space. Apart from this, there is no basis for quantifying a sum of `33,450/- on account of warehousing charges. It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was parked in an open space and as a result of which it has suffered damages. Therefore, the impugned demand towards parking charges, as demanded by the respondents to the tune of `33,450/- cannot be held to be justified. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent – Corporation shall permit the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle namely ambassador car bearing registration No.KA-16-6746.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV