Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
Krishna S.Dixit, J.
Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.58854 of 2014(BDA)
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Smt. Bhavana G K, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. K Krishna, Advocate, Smt. N Anitha, HCGP
Statutory authorities must conduct themselves with fairness and justice in their actions.
Headnote:- Donation - Indian Trusts Act, 1882; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court discussed the interpretation of the term "donation" in the context of a lease transaction and its implications under the relevant acts. It also considered the doctrines of estoppel and promissory estoppel, emphasizing fairness in actions by statutory authorities. The court highlighted the importance of using language accurately to avoid misinterpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private Trust, contested a demand from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to return a sum of Rs.50 Lakh granted as a 'donation' during the renewal of a lease.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the BDA's demand based on the term 'donation' was unjustified and ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing fairness and justice in statutory authority actions.Issues:
Interpretation of 'donation' in lease transactions, applicability of estoppel and promissory estoppel.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that statutory authorities must act with fairness and justice, highlighting the significance of accurate language use to avoid misinterpretations.Final Decision:
The writ petition succeeded, and a Writ of Certiorari was issued quashing the impugned letter from BDA. The petitioner was relieved from paying the claimed amount.ORDER :
This judgment needs to be prefaced with what more than a century ago, a great Judge of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in TOWNE vs. EISNER, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) had observed :
“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used..”.
The difficulty which the petitioner is put to arose because of BDA’s employment of a wrong English word namely, ‘donation’ in a lease transaction and the same having been literally construed by the statutory auditing party, the concession given to the lessee was sought to be revoked.
2. The Petitioner, a private Trust registered under the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is grieving before the Writ Court against the BDA’s Letter dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure-M) whereby it is asked to pay back a sum of Rs.50 Lakh on the ground that such a ‘donation’ could not have been made by the BDA -an authority constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 whilst renewing lease of the sites in question.
3. The impugned letter reads as under:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that 30 year lease initially granted having been renewed for the same tenure with the concession consciously given in a sum of Rs.50 Lakh, the BDA an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, could not have turned around and asked the Petitioner to return the concession, whatever be the nomenclature adopted in the impugned letter. She vociferously presses into service both the doctrine of estoppel under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the doctrine of promissory estoppel vide Apex Court decision in UNION OF INDIA vs INDO AFGHAN AGENCIES, AIR 1968 SC 718, in support of her case.
5. The Respondent – BDA having entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel has filed its Statement of Objections dated 26.02.2015 resisting the Writ Petition. Learned Panel Counsel contends that the BDA being the statutory authority has to function under the provisions of 1976 Act and therefore it cannot undertake any charitable activity like making donation that are not authorized by the statutory scheme. In support of this, he relies on the Calcutta High Court decision in SATIBHUSAN MUKHARJEE Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA, AIR 1949 Calcutta 20. He also points out the audit objections to the concession granted to the petitioner-lessee in the matter of premium/rentals. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
a) Petitioner is a registered Trust and not a profit making entity is apparent from the registered Trust Deed dated 05.03.1979 at Annexure-A. Initially, it had secured a 30 year lease of the subject sites vide registered deed dated 28.12.1979 from the Respondent – BDA. The BDA on request has accorded the renewal of this lease on 16.06.2010 for the same tenure, the original tenure having expired on 28.12.2009, along with the concession of Rs.50 lakh as instructed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State presumably u/s.65 of the 1976 Act. It hardly needs to be stated that the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder provide for entering into lease transactions as well. It hardly needs to be stated that the power to enter into transactions of the kind includes the incidental power to grant some concessions keeping in view a host of factors, as may be directed by the Government u/s.65. Further, the concession of the kind by no stretch of imagination can be treated as illegal. That being the position, the counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in submitting that the BDA now cannot turn around and rescind the concession. Law abhors approbation & reprobation, inasmuch as the BDA being a statutory authority answers t
