IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.25-26/2019 (BDA) BETWEEN 1. Sri. Subramani S/o. Changaiah Naidu, Aged about 63 years, 2. Smt. Kamala, W/o. Sri. Subramani, Aged about 55 years, Both are R/at No.1485, 27th Cross, 24th Main, 2nd Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru – 560 070. …Petitioners (By Sri. Raghunath C.M., Advocate) AND 1. The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020.
2. Engineering Member, Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. …Respondents (Sri.K. Krishna, Advocate for R1 & R2) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners dated 12.12.2018 vide Annexure – A and to direct the respondents to refund the excess amount collected towards the sanction of plan for the same converted land for the first and second time under various heads.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioners is against the non consideration of the representation dated 12.12.2018 at Annexure-A by the respondents–BDA wherein they have sought for refund of certain sums of money allegedly paid when there was no legal obligation to. This representation having remained unconsidered, the petitioners have rushed to the Court with the said innocuous prayer.
2. The learned Senior Panel Counsel Sri.K.Krishna on request, having accepted the notice submits that these writ petitions are premature in as much as the petitioners have approached the Court with undue haste when the said representation is made only on 12.12.2018.
3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that this representation is in the nature of a reminder only in asmuchas they had made earlier representations long before, although, the copies thereof are not been placed on record. Any way this is a matter to be looked into by the respondent-BDA to which the learned Panel Counsel does not much object to.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 has held that a citizen who in ignorance of law or facts has made excess payment of tax or levies is entitled to seek the refund from the statutory authority subject to just exceptions. The representations of the petitioners obviously having remained unconsidered, a direction needs to be issued for their consideration.
5. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-BDA to consider petitioners reminder/representation dated 12.12.2018 at Annexure-A in accordance with law, within a time limit of three months subject to his furnishing the necessary information or documents as would be solicited by the respondent-BDA for doing the mandated exercise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS