Shri Ramakrishna Educational Trust vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Ramakrishna Educational Trust, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated April 17, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (South), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice pertained to ground rent, GST on ground rent, difference in built-up area, and building constructed without obtaining a Completion Certificate (CC) fee for the plinth area. The petitioner sought to quash these specific demands and also challenged the constitutional validity of Bye-Law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, and certain provisions of Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended. Additionally, the petitioner sought to quash a notification amending Rules 37-A and 37-C. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to issue an Occupancy Certificate without insisting on the payment of the disputed demands.

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, referencing a co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of MR. SUNDERAM SHETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA. The imposition of labour cess under the Welfare Cess Act was upheld. However, the demand for its upfront payment, as stipulated in Government Orders dated January 18, 2007, and February 28, 2007, was quashed. The Court clarified that the State or BBMP is not precluded from introducing impugned levies by making suitable amendments to the Act and Rules. Petitioners who had deposited amounts pursuant to interim orders were entitled to a refund. For those who paid under protest, a refund would be contingent on the amounts not having been collected from consumers. Other payments made were subject to representations to the BBMP, which was directed to consider refund requests in accordance with law and the Court's findings within 12 weeks of such representations. The specific issues regarding the constitutionality of Bye-Law No. 3.9, Section 18-A of the Act, and Rules 37-A and 37-C, and the demands in the notice were implicitly addressed by the quashing of the upfront demand and the directions for refund, indicating a favorable outcome for the petitioner on these points, though not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

Key Issues

1. Whether Bye-Law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that this bye-law is beyond the scope of the enabling Act and imposes levies not contemplated by law. 2. 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 unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that these provisions empower the imposition of levies that are not legally sustainable. 3. Whether the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C, as notified by the State, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires, as submitted by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that these rules suffer from similar infirmities as the bye-laws and the Act provisions. 4. Whether the demands for ground rent, GST on ground rent, difference in built-up area, and building constructed without CC fee for plinth area, as raised in the demand notice dated April 17, 2021, are legally sustainable, and if not, whether the Occupancy Certificate should be issued without insisting on their payment, as prayed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that these demands are based on unconstitutional provisions and rules. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided.