The petitioner is before this court, seeking for

following releifs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction

by quashing the impugned order issued by the respondent

No.2

in

order

No.

ARO(CVR)W-50/PR-104/2020-21,

dated:18/07/2023, (passed under Section 108 A(13)(e)

of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976) vide

Annexure-A, which is issued under old KMC Act and that

act is repealed and new BBMP Act-2020 is in force and

order is issued to petitioner property bearing No.65, 1^st 'A'

Cross, Ramaiah Reddy Layout, OMBR, Chikkabanasawadi,

Bangalore-560043, in the interest of justice.

b) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems

fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice.

Heard

Sri.Y.R.Sadashiva

Reddy.,

learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Pawan

Kumar learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3.

The contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner

is not served with the demand notice dated

- 3 -

12.07.2023 (Annexure-G) at the address of the

petitioner and without service of the said notice, the

petitioner being deprived of replying to the same and

an order has been passed on 18.07.2023 at

Annexure-A, calling upon the petitioner to make

payment of certain taxes, which is not permissible

without having served notice on the petitioner. Apart

from that, it is submitted that, said notice having

been issued in terms of Rule 27, Schedule 3 of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, is also

nonest in view of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike Act, coming into force in the year 2020 and no

notice could have been issued under the erstwhile

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which is

not applicable to the to the property situated within

the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike.

4.

A perusal of the Annexure-A and annexed documents

would indicate that, notice is claimed to have been

served under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,

- 4 -

1976 and as such, the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is

justified in as much as the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike Act come into force in the year

2020. Apart from that, the address shown in the said

notice is also insufficient in as much as there is no

identification to the property and nor postal address

has been furnished. In that view of the matter, I

pass the following:

ORDER

i.

The writ petition is allowed;

ii.

Writ of certiorari is issued. Order bearing

No.ARO

(CVR)W-50/PR-104/2020-21,

dated 18.07.2023, (Annexure-A) as also

the

demand

notice

dated

12.07.2023

(Annexure-G) are hereby quashed;

iii.

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to

initiate such action as may be necessary

under

the

provisions

of

the

Bruhat

- 5 -

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, after

serving a valid notice on the petitioner at

the address mentioned in the cause title of

the writ petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18