Dr Smt. B M Nirmala vs. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issue in the writ petition stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, disposed of on August 4, 2021. Following the same terms and conditions as directed in the aforesaid writ petition, this writ petition also stands disposed of. The specific findings on the constitutionality of Bye-law No. 3.9 and the sustainability of the demand notice are not detailed in this order, as the disposal is based on the precedent. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. (Smt.) B M Nirmala, challenged a demand notice dated April 12, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), seeking payment towards ground rent, including GST and other additional charges. The petitioner also sought a declaration that Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires. The respondents are the BBMP, the State of Karnataka (Urban Development Department), the Assistant Director of Town Planning, and the State of Karnataka (Department of Labour). The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires the Constitution of India and relevant statutes. 2. Whether the demand notice dated April 12, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP, demanding payment towards ground rent including GST and other additional charges is legally sustainable. The petitioner argued that Bye-law No. 3.9 is unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioner also contended that the demand notice, which includes GST and other charges, is unsustainable. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the issue in the writ petition is covered by a previous judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, disposed of on August 4, 2021.