Social Services Society Of The Sisters Of St John The Baptist vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Social Services Society of the Sisters of St. John the Baptist, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated January 30, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (South), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice demanded various fees including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, betterment fee, security deposit, water supply scheme charges, slum board charges, ring road charges, MRTS charges, surcharge on cess, service charge on labour cess, and labour cess. The petitioner also sought to declare Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, as unconstitutional and sought to quash specific government orders and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and amended rules. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the binding decisions in the "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" cases. In "Sunderam Shetty," a coordinate bench had declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed certain government circulars. Similarly, in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters," the court struck down Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024, holding the linking of fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, as illegal, and quashed related circulars and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The impugned demand notice was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the application for building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law, without withholding them based on the contemplation of an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated January 30, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (South), BBMP, demanding various fees and charges, is legally sustainable? 2. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? 3. Whether the Government Order No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are valid? 4. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are constitutional? 5. Whether amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are valid? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand notice and various bye-laws and statutory provisions are illegal and unconstitutional. They relied on previous judgments of the High Court in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" cases, which had dealt with similar issues concerning levies of ground rent, license fees, and the linking of fees to market values. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents.