Sri B Vijeth Bhandary vs The Board Of Appeal on 17 November, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Vijeth Bhandary vs The Board Of Appeal on 17 November, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

                              BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

         WRIT PETITION No.49639 OF 2019 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN :

SRI. B. VIJETH BHANDARY
REGISTERED RACE HORSE OWNER
AGE:52 YEARS
NO.2084, 8TH FLOOR
HIGH POINT-II
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. SANKET M. YENAGI, ADVOCATE)


AND :

1.      THE BOARD OF APPEAL
        BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED
        POST BOX NO.5038
        52, RACE COURSE ROAD
        BENGALURU-560 001
        REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
        MR. N. HARINDRA SHETTY

2.      THE HON'BLE STEWARDS
        BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED
        POST BOX NO.5038
        52, RACE COURSE ROAD
        BENGALURU-560 001

3.      THE SENIOR STIPENDIARY STEWARD
        BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED
        POST BOX NO.5038
        52, RACE COURSE ROAD
        BENGALURU-560 001
                                          2




4.       THE SECRETARY
         BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED
         POST BOX NO.5038
         52, RACE COURSE ROAD
         BENGALURU-560 001                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2019
BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-G AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2019
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-L AFFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 11.09.2019 BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AT ANENXURE-G.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                     ORDER

Heard Shri Sanket.M.Yenagi, learned advocate for the petitioner Shri S.Sriranga, learned advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. Shri Sriranga has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Veena Harish Vs. The State of Karnataka and another 1.

3. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid decision reads as follows:

"11. In almost an identical matter, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pesi Shroff (supra) has held that the Turf Club does not answer the description of 'other authorities' employed in 1 W..P.No.49636/2018 decided on 16.11.2018 3 Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A paragraph 13, that Court has observed as under:

"13. Keeping in view the above basic facts pertaining to the Turf Club and the Racing conducted by it, it seems to us that the Turf Club cannot come in the sweep of the concept 'other Authority' as contemplated under Article 12, for the reasons that follow:

1) The Turf Club is a limited liability Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act;

2) Its objects are wide and varied and have no nexus with the discharge of regal, statutory or public functions of the State;

3) Racing is only one of the activities of the Club though an important one;

4) But for the provisions of the Act of 1912, some of the activities like betting on horse races conducted by the Turf Club are illegal and prohibited under the general law;

5) Conditions of licence for racing and restrictions imposed thereunder are essentially regulatory in nature and are also to protect the revenue in the form of entertainment duty under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act and tax on betting under the Bombay Betting Tax Act;

6) The Government neither holds the share capital of the Club nor finds it.

7) The Club and its activities including activity of racing are governed by the Managing Committee of 11 Members by Majority Maximum 2 Members can be nominated by the Government. Those nominated members have no power to veto and no obligation to report to the Government. Government has no power to issue binding instructions to their nominees. Hence, 4 there is no governmental control - in the case deep or pervasive -- over the functions of the Club;

8) No monopoly is conferred by the statute upon the Club in the matter of conducting races;

9) The Club is not formed by transfer of any Government Department".

This Court is in complete agreement with the above observation of the said Court which in all fours apply to the case of the petitioner."

3. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the said decision. In view of the above, writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE AV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court