M/S Umrah Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Umrah Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 02"" DAY OF JUNE 2011)

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULUVAD'E;:(:}.R1:&:M'I53S.uIi_  

WRIT PETITION N0.169cg2t"O:4* 201'l)(I{AﬂRe---!.§ES:§  
BETWEEN: O L   O O

M/s. UMRAH Developers, _ _ "

No.22/1, Miller Tank Bum R0-a'<i;.  

Kaveriyappa Layoutg  5  ',   

Bar1ga10re--52. .. -

Represented byaits Pr0vp1'*i'et0j" V  _ v_ A' 

S1'i.D.Babu       ..PETIT}ONER

(By S.1fi.DB3}N'é1n}-glidziReddy', Sr.C0unseI for
S1-i.Reube-n ]a1C()b,..A<1V:9.___V 

5.33.121 _

  Th1eTSt_é1te._()f Kalnataka,

T " 'De'p_ai1't.if;e.1it--Qf' Revenue,
"  Bv.u_ii'd£':';ig,

'  Ban.gaI'Q,:'e,

" By' i is Secretary.

V. O The Deputy Commissioner,
 ..Ba,ngai0re Urban District,

K.G.R0ad, Bangalore. ..RESPONDENTS

(By S1'i.R.Omkum21:*, AGA) 'V, 7 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying: to direct the R2, to consider the representations dtd.l9.l().()9. .i.i.20EU and 2().5;"i--() vide Ann--F, G, H and pay interest at the rate of 24% the refunded amount of Rs.i2,5(),(}0()/« (rupees t\zveI_.\.»re_'}»aR'h$; ﬁfty thousand only) being the 25% of the BID ainotnni dejjo$fite.t'it----~by--, the petitioner in respecst ofthe schedule 1and.___ This Writ Petition coming on f()if_gi{iet!iininai'3I._lieating,eIh'is day, the Court made the following: i A' " -- "

o R' R Learned Goveritinent is"t.directeti"~to*'take notice for respondents.

2.iiA.eCt_)rdin_g7t('ithe petitioner, he participated in the pijo§;eed.in§.;s heat:-1 in auctioning the Government piopeifty by the V' .Deput"yi:' C_t)miiiissi():te1', Bangalore and he was a successful atso deposited 25% of the BID amount i_.e., R$iiiii2,5_O;{)i{i§3{}/'i- in respect of the scheduled land. The petitionez' on coining to know about the fact that the:<;e iands are sought to "o'e--~._a<:quired for Nada Prabu Keinpegowda Layout to he fortned 'BDAt he submitted his i'ep_i*esentat.i<_)ns seeking for 1'et'und of .'i ZN the annount deposited by him. with interest. He has aiso fiied W.P.N'o.i8738/()9 before this Court seeking for a _ti.ii*_'e;:tio_:1 to refund the amount. The said petition was iti'i:£)VVéd'..:.:'VK3ifi§~._'Eta' direction to the respondent--authoifities Ito" the' representations of the petitioner z1nd'the._Gove1'n:ne--nt an order for refund and z1cc()i'd.eiiig]y, tiae~..giim)ont deposi.ted by' the petitioner has been ":2d_§ustc:diit()'ni;ird's.other izii*t'1(_>"Lii:nts payable by the petitioner in respect ofiyoniie o.t_h"eiijaij§.;tion proceedings. But in so fix?35,}.~p:3y:me:it'V"of'"in.te~fe3t._...5:s concerned, despite sLibmitting _i'ep:_.i"e,3enté:t'i.onsifno'2:'cti.oni has been taken. Hence, this pevtitituii. V 4: .i'ii~i;-:i'the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that this Coui<t in si_ngie Bench as well as in the Divis;ion Bench has " i.ie_Edi.--'that, in well an event. the Government has to pay interest 6% on the znntnunt deposited, from the date of deposit iii! 3:?"

concluded it could have taken steps to keep the amount in any of the nattionalixeti banks which would have ea-u'ned_j_r_1tere$t. For the Eatpse on the part of the Govemmerat, petitit)v1jer_iC:1_nm)t be bitmied. The Government, if need be, could iniptﬁite its to for whose defauit the money c()ui(E not fetch ii ii i

6. Accordingiy, petition dis'po$'e.d of._Ti1e; 're}_;po~ndent;.tL authorities are directed to ct)ras'i;<.ip»e'i:t11e 1'ep.:fese.nt:1tio:j1 Stibmittedi by the petitioner and to pay the..ieitere§t.,_@ --fr.om¢ithe date of receipt til} the date of pa:.yii1er1t_, v\;_Etli(it1t'ftirtiiei' delay. L63.-1l'I'tE:d Gm-<e1":":»iiie1tt iPEeat.E*e.1' is permitted to file his n1g~:'i§ic)_()E' tippettitpztiicte w*ithini'-t'<?:u'1' weeks from today. Sd/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court