Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19842
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI NAGARAJU S/O. LATE SRI NARASIMAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.33232 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI MEGHACHANDRA D.N.
For the Respondents: SRI BOPANNA B., SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR
Higher courts' decisions are binding on lower courts, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations concerning municipal bye-laws.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Petitioners sought to declare bye-law No.3.9 of BBMP Building Bye-law 2003 as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires - The court followed previous decisions in W.P.No.23086/2022, W.P.No.36017/2018, quashing government circulars and levies under relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act - Petition allowed, demand notice set aside, directions issued to the BBMP to process building license application. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - The court reiterated that prior decisions are binding, thus, present writ petition did not warrant further adjudication. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the legality of BBMP bye-law No.3.9 and a demand notice issued related to building licenses, supported by previous rulings which quashed similar regulations.
Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed, irrelevant government notices quashed, and directions were provided to issue the required licenses.
Issues: The main issue was the constitutionality of the BBMP bye-law and legality surrounding the demand notice.
Ratio Decidendi: Past rulings determined the unconstitutionality of similar regulations hence this petition could proceed without further deliberation.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. previous decisions impact scope of current case. (Para 2) |
| 2. standing court opinions invalidate similar regulatory actions. (Para 4) |
| 3. past rulings mitigate need for new judgments. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ petition is conclusively resolved in favor of petitioners. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction declaring bye law NO.3.9 of BBMP Building bye law 2003 as unconstitutional illegal and ultra-vires;
ii) Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Demand notice dated 04/12/2024 bearing No. BBMP/EoDB/CH/ 37821/24-25 issued by Respondent No.4 as per ANEXURE – A to this writ petition; iii) Grant such other relief/s which deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein referred to as “ M/s Sapthagiri Shelters ”) as well as W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein referred to as “ Sunderam Shetty ”), have comprehensively adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy.
3. In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co-
ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and
30.03.2017.
4. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid.
5. The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.
6. In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated
04.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.
(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.
(vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
