IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.6364 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDHI SHAIKSHANIKA PRATHISTHANA (REGD.), HATTIYANGADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 283, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI RAMACHANDRA BHAT, SON OF GANAPAIAH BHAT, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 26TH HATTIYANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HATTIYANGADI POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 230.
2. THE PRESIDENT 26TH HATTIYANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HATTIYANGADI POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 230.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 230.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-4;
R-3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.3307 OF 2017 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3307 of 2017, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners therein have filed the instant writ appeal.
2. The petitioners challenged the order passed by respondent No.3 - Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Udupi District, in an appeal with regard to payment of tax. The matter was remanded back to the original authority. However, a direction was issued to the petitioners for payment of the entire tax due. The same was challenged in the instant petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the third respondent and on the question whether the appeal was maintainable.
3. The same was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the entire tax demanded would have to be paid.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. The question of maintainability of the appeal or other grounds raised in the appeal is inconsequential. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was that when the matter was remanded to the original authority, there was no question of the appellant paying the entire tax amount due. Payment of the disputed tax amount arises when an appeal has to be considered and not before the original authority. Therefore, the order of remanding the matter to original authority while directing the appellant to pay the entire tax demanded is erroneous.
5. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3307 of 2017, dated 05.06.2017 is sustained to the extent of remanding the matter to the original authority. The direction to pay the entire tax due is set-aside. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Pending I.A.s stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-