Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20153
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
M/S. SUVILAS REALITIES PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.256 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P.
For the Respondents: SMT. SPOORTHY.V, SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN
Judicial precedence established that similar levies for permits by BBMP are unconstitutional and must be quashed.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Quashing of demand notice - Petitioner challenges various fees and charges imposed by BBMP as ultra vires - Co-ordinate benches have struck down similar levies in cases regarding the constitutionality of building bye-laws and related government orders - Present petition allowed based on binding precedents. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Importance of adherence to co-ordinate bench decisions - The issues raised are covered by prior judgments, evoking principles of stare decisis and judicial discipline. (Paras 3-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued by BBMP regarding various fees related to building approval processes, seeking declarations that certain bye-laws are illegal and demanding the issuance of a building license.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the previous rulings invalidated certain fees levied by BBMP, thus allowing the petition and directing a new evaluation of the application.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the fees demanded by BBMP were lawful and the constitutionality of the bye-laws in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the demand notice was contrary to binding precedents which declared similar levies as illegal and ordered fresh processing of the building license application without unlawful withholding based on pending appeals.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's ruling to allow writ petition based on binding precedents. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. previous judgments invalidated similar fees under the act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court applies binding decisions to direct bbmp's actions appropriately. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir./JDNORTH/0007/20-21 dated nil signed on 28.10.2020 at Annexure-H issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs.3,67,723/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.73,54,462/- towards License Fee, Rs.43,39,133/- towards Ground Rent and GST, Rs.43,39,133/- towards betterment fee for building, as per section 18 of KTCP Act,Rs.81,71,624/- towards security deposit. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is also challenging the demand towards workers welfare fund(Labour Cess) of Rs. 1,26,62,000/- and also 1% of the services charges in a sum of Rs.9,47,942/- payable to the Corporation from out of the Labour Welfare Fund and demand of surcharge of Rs.26,25,998/-towards water supply scheme (BWSSB), Rs.26,25,998/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.13,12,999/- towards improving slums(KSCB), Rs.65,64,996/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System(BDA), are concerned;
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires;
iii. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government Order issued by the 2ªd Respondent bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18.01.2007 and the corrigendum bearing No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated 28.02.2007 directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, as contained in ANNEXURE –L iv. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash provisions of section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act , 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 by the 1" Respondent at Annexure-N in so far as 18-A(i)
and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned.
v. Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the ist Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-P in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37- C are concerned;
vi. Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir./JDNORTH / 0007/20-21 dated nil signed on 28.10.2020 at Annexure-H issued by the respondent No.4.
vii. Issue Writ of Mandamus to Respondents No.3 and 5 to refund an amount of Rs.1,26,62,000/- deposited by the petitioner through Receipt No.HO/17297/2020 dated 14.12.2020 at Annexure-J and Rs.1,26,99,000/- deposited through receipt No.BBMP/14465/CH/20-21 dated 18.12.2020 at Annexure-K.
viii. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the 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
