IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.7880 OF 2012 (LB-BBMP) BETWEEN :
V S R Media Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore, Having its registered office at No.503, Chartered Mady, 17th Main, J.P.Nagar II Phase, Bangalore.
Having its branch office at No.1128, 21st Cross, 14th Main, 3rd Sector, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102 Represented by its Managing director Mr. G.Sathish Reddy, Aged about 31 yers, S/o. Mr.G.P.Reddy. ... Petitioner (By Sri. T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate) AND :
1. State of Karnataka, Housing & Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Corporation Offices, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002, Represented by its Commissioner 3. The Commissioner Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
4. The Deputy Commissioner (Advertisement), Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
5. The Assistant Commissioner (Advertisement), Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
6. The Joint Commissioner (Advertisement), Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
7. The Town Planning & Development Appeals Committee, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002. …Respondents ( BY Smt. B.P.Radha, AGA for R1, Sri. I.G.Gachchinmath, For R2 to R7) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Order bearing No. NAAE 362 MNU 2010 dated 13.07.2011 issued by respondent No.1 approving the proposal for increase of advertisement tax amount from Rs.86.25/- per Sq. Mtr. To Rs.129/- per Sq. Mtr., as highly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER It is noticed from the records that a memo of retirement was filed by the learned counsel for petitioner on 11.04.2017, which was accompanied with intimation letter to the party. Acknowledgment Card with signature evidencing the receipt of intimation letter sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as postal receipt for having sent the letter of retirement is enclosed along with the memo of retirement filed by the counsel. The court notice ordered to the party has been returned in the first instance with shara “not claimed” on 03.07.2017. The subsequent court notice however, has been returned with an endorsement “no such person”.
2. Taking note of the fact that petitioner has been informed by the learned counsel for petitioner, which has been acknowledged by the petitioner, no further notice is deemed necessary, and in the light of fact that petitioner has not made any alternate arrangement despite there being material on record to indicate that petitioner was informed by his counsel, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Np/-
Sd/-
JUDGE