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.7321 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. N. K. Gopinath, S/o Sri. N. M. Krishna, Aged about 41 years, Hotel Surya, Shop No.1, 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, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 011.
… Petitioner 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.
… Respondents (ASG served and unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the demand notice issued on 10.01.2019 by R-3 vide Annexure – D and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Swamy M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 petitioner.
3. In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks writ of certiorari for quashment of the demand notice dated 10.01.2019 contained in Annexure-D issued by respondent No.3.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is running a hotel in a shop, which has been allotted to him by respondent No.3. Petitioner is in occupation of the shop as licencee. It is the case of the petitioner that unilaterally, the licence fee was revised from `15,322/- to `64,118/- with effect from 01.01.2017 without any intimation to the petitioner and demand notice has been issued on 10.01.2019 by which the licence fee is being demanded at the rate of `64,118/-.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the grievance, petitioner has submitted a representation to the competent authority. However, the aforesaid representation has failed to evoke any response and the competent authority be directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is directed that the competent authority shall take an appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, which is 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 representation is taken, no coercive action against the petitioner shall be taken.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE