Dayananda Sagar vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder M/s. Candeur Construction, have filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated June 26, 2019, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (North), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice includes various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, and security deposit. The petitioners seek to quash the demand notice specifically concerning the amounts levied towards scrutiny fee (Rs. 10,69,994/-), license fee (Rs. 2,13,99,880/-), ground rent and GST (Rs. 1,26,25,929/-), and security deposit (Rs. 1,76,13,070/-). The present writ petition raises identical issues to those previously adjudicated in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases.

Held

The Court disposed of the present writ petition by following the order passed in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases, which were decided on August 4, 2021. As the issues in this petition were identical to those in the aforementioned cases, the Court applied the same reasoning and decision. The judgment does not provide the specific details of the order in W.P. No. 4601/2020, but by stating that it disposed of the current petition in light of the previous order, it indicates that the outcome for the petitioners in this case is determined by that prior ruling. The specific findings on each component of the demand (scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, security deposit) are not detailed in this order, as it relies on a previous judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (North), BBMP, dated June 26, 2019, is legally sustainable in so far as it levies charges for scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, and security deposit against the petitioners. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argue that the demand notice is arbitrary and illegal, seeking to quash specific components of the demand, including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, and security deposit. They rely on the fact that the issues raised in this petition are identical to those decided in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases, implying that the outcome should follow the precedent set in those cases. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the State of Karnataka or the BBMP in this particular writ petition. However, it is implied that they are defending the demand notice issued by the BBMP.