B H Srinivasa Murthy vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court found the offer made by BMRCL to be fair. Regarding the issue of discriminatory allowance based on GST payment, the Court implicitly accepted BMRCL's policy as fair, as it did not direct any alteration to the differential amounts based on GST payment. The Court noted that an allowance of Rs. 60,000 for loss of business and Rs. 35,000 for shifting expenses had been made to the petitioner. On the aspect of proper measurement, the Court accepted BMRCL's fair submission to conduct a joint survey. If the survey confirmed the petitioner's assertion that the office measured 282 sq. ft., the allowance would be enhanced in terms of the policy. The Court directed BMRCL to conduct a survey of the petitioner's office premises in his presence on February 10, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., and to pass orders expeditiously thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary challenge regarding the GST-based differentiation in allowance was not explicitly ruled upon as discriminatory.

Facts

The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of his office premises for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project. His grievance was that the shifting allowance provided for tenants in the Compensation and Resettlement Package (CRP) 2019 was discriminatory. Specifically, he argued that the policy differentiated between individuals who paid GST and those who did not, with the latter receiving a lower allowance. The petitioner also contended that the exact measurement of his office was not considered. The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), respondent No. 3, submitted that the allowances were made as per their policy and that the petitioner had accepted the initial allowance under protest. BMRCL also agreed to a joint survey to verify the office measurements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Compensation and Resettlement Package (CRP) 2019, as implemented by BMRCL, is discriminatory in its provision for shifting allowance for tenants, specifically by differentiating based on GST payment status, thereby violating principles of equality and fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the method of calculating the shifting allowance, particularly the exclusion of precise measurement of the petitioner's office premises, is arbitrary and requires reconsideration? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the CRP 2019 creates an arbitrary classification by providing different shifting allowances based on whether a tenant pays GST. He highlighted that individuals paying SGST up to Rs. 5,000 p.m. received Rs. 85,000, between Rs. 5,001 to Rs. 15,000 received Rs. 1,70,000, and above Rs. 15,001 received Rs. 2,25,000, whereas those not paying SGST, like himself, received only Rs. 60,000. He also contended that the exact measurement of his office was not taken into account. Respondent's arguments (BMRCL): BMRCL contended that the compensation and allowances were made in accordance with their policy as documented in Annexure-F. They submitted that even though an advocate might not be considered to be doing 'business' in the conventional sense, the petitioner was still considered for the allowance as he was required to shift his office, and the same benefit as a commercial establishment was extended. BMRCL also agreed to a joint survey to address the measurement issue and enhance the allowance if the petitioner's assertion was found to be correct.