IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5131 OF 2016 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN:
SRI. M.V. SHANKER BHAT SON OF LATE M VISHNU BHAT AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT SURABHI SHIRDI SAI BABA LANE ASHOKNAGAR MANGALURU – 575006.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001.
2. THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALURU LALBAGH MANGALURU - 575001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER .
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU, D.K. – 575001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.LAXMINARAYAN, AGA. FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 3 SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2-ABSENT) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN R.P.NO.430/2014 AND THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.28104/2009.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 26.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.1430 of 2014 and the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14290 of 2009 and connected matters, wherein a common order was passed, the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.28104 of 2009 has filed this appeal.
2. The only plea of the appellant is that the relief sought for by him and the consideration of the same by the learned Single Judge are different. The prayer made by him was for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned resolution dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Administrator of the Corporation of the City of Mangaluru, and consequently to declare that Sections 108, 109 and 109A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, are arbitrary, unconstitutional and unrealistic and liable to be struck down. A batch of writ petitions were heard and disposed off by the common order, wherein the impugned Rule 3(v) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules 2009 insofar as it relates to Category IX and XIII in Table II of Annexure 2 were quashed, and the respondents were directed to frame new Rules keeping in view the mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 108-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
Hence, he pleads the contention and his prayer has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
3. The contesting respondent No.2 is absent.
4. Questioning the common order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14290 of 2009 and connected matters, review petition was also filed urging this very ground in Review Petition No.430 of 2014, by order dated 26.10.2016 the Review Petition was dismissed as there being no error apparently in the said judgment.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view, that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge has no nexus with the plea of the writ petitioner. The prayer of the writ petitioner is totally different. The batch of cases have no relation to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner would have to be re-considered.
6. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14290 of 2009 and connected matters, insofar as it relates to the appellant is concerned, is set aside. The Writ Petition No.28104 of 2009 is restored to file. The learned Single Judge to re-hear the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms