Ningappa S/O Girimallappa Kadloor vs. State Of Karnataka And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request for redressal of his grievance needs to be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law. The first respondent's submission that they would consider the request within a reasonable period if prescribed by the court was noted. Consequently, a writ of mandamus was issued directing respondents 2 and 3 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Yadagiri, and Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Shorapur) to consider the petitioner's request for unfreezing his GST account within four weeks. The decision taken was to be communicated to the petitioner within the subsequent two weeks. The respondents were permitted to solicit necessary information or documents from the petitioner, but without causing undue delay. In case of delay beyond the prescribed period, respondents 2 and 3 were directed to pay a collective cost of Rs. 5,000/- per week to the petitioner and recover it from the erring officials. No costs were imposed at that stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Ningappa, a registered Class-2 contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to unfreeze his GST account bearing GST No. 29AOCPN6318Q1Z9. The respondents are the State of Karnataka through its Secretary for Rural Development, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, Yadagiri, and the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Shorapur. After initial opposition, the first respondent, the State, took a fair stand. The other respondents remained unrepresented. The petitioner sought expeditious redressal of his grievance regarding the frozen GST account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to unfreeze his GST account (GST No. 29AOCPN6318Q1Z9)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, as a registered contractor, is seeking the unfreezing of his GST account to conduct his business activities. He approached the court for redressal of his grievance. Revenue/State's contention: Initially opposed the writ petition. However, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent fairly submitted that if a reasonable period is prescribed by the court, the respondents would consider the petitioner's request, provided the petitioner co-operates. No specific legal provisions were cited by either side in this regard.