Karnataka High Court
Nanjunde Gowda vs The Mysore Urban Development Authority on 25 March, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.42479/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
NANJUNDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O NANJE GOWDA
ADVOCATE
R/AT #MF 10/5
BDA APARTMENT
BTM 2ND STAGE
NEAR MICO LAYOUT
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.)
AND:
THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570005.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SEETHARAMA S.P., ADV. FOR
SRI H M SIDDHARTH, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION/ NOTICE MADE ON 16.01.2017 VIDE ANNEX-
A FOR PAYMENT OF 18% INTEREST TO THE DEPOSITED
AMOUNT OF RS.1,90,100/-.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation/notice (Annexure-A) dated 16.01.2017 for payment of 18% interest on the deposited amount of Rs.1,90,100/-.
2. Heard Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Seetharama S.P., learned counsel for Sri H.M. Siddarth, learned counsel for the respondent-the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'the MUDA').
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification dated 19.09.2011, the petitioner filed application for allotment of a site to the respondent- MUDA and the petitioner had deposited a sum of 3 Rs.1,90,100/- with the respondent-MUDA on 17.10.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was not allotted a site, since he had no seniority. The petitioner is said to have issued legal notice as per Annexure-A dated 16.01.2017 to the respondent-MUDA praying for refund of deposited amount of Rs.1,90,100/- with interest from 2011 to 2017. It is submitted that the respondent-MUDA refunded the amount without interest. It is the contention that petitioner would be entitled for interest as the respondent-MUDA utilized the petitioner's money for more than six years. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
5. There is no dispute with regard to making payment of Rs.1,90,100/- by the petitioner to the respondent-MUDA on 17.10.2011. The respondent- MUDA by communication dated 06.02.2017 informed 4 the petitioner that he would be entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him. Thereafter the petitioner was refunded through RTGS the amount of Rs.1,90,100/- on 09.08.2017. Admittedly the amount was with the respondent-MUDA from 2011 to 2017. The legal notice issued by the petitioner cannot be considered as representation of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the respondent-MUDA claiming interest on Rs.1,90,100/-, which was with the respondent-MUDA from 2011 to 2017.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would submit representation forthwith.
7. Taking note of the above submission, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order :-
Petitioner is at liberty to submit representation within 15 days, claiming interest. The respondent- MUDA is directed to consider the representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the 5 above said representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate order.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms