Karnataka High Court
Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt Ltd vs Doddathogur Gram Panchayat on 24 March, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 36894 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 36894 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.1, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR,
INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADITYA SOUDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIKAS R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DODDATHOGUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY, DODDATHOGUR,
BANGALORE - 560 100,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT
by
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA 2. PRESIDENT,
Location: HIGH DODDATHOGUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KONAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY, DODDATHOGUR
BANGALORE - 560 100.
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR,
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
WP No. 36894 of 2016
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD BANGALORE DIVISION,
PWD ANNEX BUILDING 2ND FLOOR,
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. STATE OF KANRATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TO THE GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
305, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAY K S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR M B, HCGP FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH R-1'S NOTICE DATED 01.01.2016 AT
ANNEX-B AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO; QUASH R-1 AND
2 FINAL NOTICE DATED 16.01.2016 AT ANNEX-C AND ALL ACTIONS
PURSUANT THERE TO; QUASH THE R-1'S FINAL NOTICE DATED
24.03.2016 IN ANNEX-E AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERE TO
AND ETC.,
THIS WP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. ISSUE an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent No.1's Notice No.Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16, dated -3- WP No. 36894 of 2016 01.01.2016, in Anneuxre-B, and all actions pursuant thereto;
b. ISSUE an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Final Notice No.Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16, dated 16.01.2016, in Anneuxre-C, and all actions pursuant thereto;
c. ISSUE an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent No.1's Final Notice No.Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16, dated 24.03.2016, in Anneuxre-E, and all actions pursuant thereto;
d. ISSUE an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Final Urgent Notice No.Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16, dated 11.05.2016, in Anneuxre-F, and all actions pursuant thereto;
e. ISSUE an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Letter No. Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16, dated 03.06.2016, in Anneuxre-H, and all actions pursuant thereto and f. PASS such other further or consequential orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity under the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The contention of Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that:
2.1. though respondent No.4 had granted permission to the petitioner for the purpose of road cutting and the laying of optical fibre cable in the road belonging to and under the -4- WP No. 36894 of 2016 supervision of respondent No.4, respondent No.1/Grama Panchayat has made a demand for payment of road cutting and supervision charges on the petitioner, which the petitioner is not liable to pay.
2.2. In this regard, he submits that firstly, the road cutting permission having been issued on 29.10.2015, the works were completed in December 2015 and the demand which has been made by respondent No.1 is in the year 2016, relying upon an amendment made to Schedule IV of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The amendment, which came into effect from 31.12.2015 by virtue of which under Clause (a) of Schedule IV of the Act levy on the road cutting charges for laying optical fibre cables was included.-5-
WP No. 36894 of 2016 2.3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the inclusion of this power to levy, road cutting charges on OFCs cables came about only on 31.12.2015, the permission having been granted by respondent No.4 on 29.10.2015 and the work carried out prior to the amendment coming into force, respondent No.1 cannot exercise the power by virtue of the said amendment.
2.4. Secondly, he submits that in terms of Section 63 of the Act'), it is only the village roads and bridges thereon, car tracks, trains, wells, and other public places in the Panchayat areas not being the private properties and not being under the control of management of Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, or industrial township of the government, could the Grama Panchayat assume any jurisdiction and thereafter, in terms -6- WP No. 36894 of 2016 of Section 199 of the Act, levy any charges.
The road in question being a sub-arterial road coming within the jurisdiction of respondent No.4/Public Works Department (PWD), and the said road not being a village road, the panchayat could not assume any jurisdiction in relation thereto.
2.5. On both the above grounds, he submits that the demand made by the panchayat not being supported by law and being contrary to Section 63 of the Act. Hence, the petition is required to be allowed and the demand made by respondent No.1 be quashed.
3. Sri. Uday K.S., learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, would submit that the Panchayat is now vested with the right to demand road cutting charges, which has been rightly exercised and no fault can be found with the Panchayat. He further submits that PWD does not have any rights. -7- WP No. 36894 of 2016
4. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 being the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and respondent No.5 being the Principal Secretary, PWD categorically submit that the road in question is under the supervision and maintenance of the PWD department.
5. A submission being made by the State on behalf of both the departments categorically indicates that the said road does not vest with the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, it is clear that the respondent No.1/Panchayat Raj has no jurisdiction over the said road.
6. Admittedly, the permission issued by respondent No.3 was on 29.10.2015 and the amendment to the Schedule IV of the Act came into effect, vide amendment notification, published in the official gazette on 31.12.2015, in terms of Sub-Section 2(1) of the Amendment Act, it came into force on a date -8- WP No. 36894 of 2016 fixed by the State Government by way of a notification.
7. Learned AGA submits that the said notification was published on 23.02.2015 and as such, the amendment could come into force only on that date. In that view of the matter, the sanction for road cutting having been given by respondent No.4 on 29.10.2015 and the work having been completed by December 2015, the amendment came into force on 23.02.2016. There could be no power which could be said to be vested with respondent no.1/Panchayat Raj to levy any road cutting charges or supervision charges.
8. That apart, the road belonging to the PWD, the Panchayat can not exercise supervision powers over the said road in terms of Section 63 of the Act, in order for the Panchyat to have any jurisdiction over the said road.
-9-WP No. 36894 of 2016
9. Such being the case, the PWD/respondent No.4 having granted sanction and collected the monies, the Panchayat cannot once again seek to collect any amount from the petitioner, much less since it is not a village road. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed, the demand made by respondent No.1 bearing No. .Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16 dated 01.01.2016 at Annexure-B, and final notice No.Do.To.Gra.Pum.Sum/Artrai01/2015-16 at Annexure-C, E, F, H are hereby quashed.
ii. The amount in deposit made by the petitioner subsequent to the interim order dated 11.07.2016 is directed to be refunded to the petitioner, which shall be refunded by respondent No.1/Panchayat Raj within a period
- 10 -
WP No. 36894 of 2016of 8 weeks along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, till the date of payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM