G Subramanyam vs The Bangalore Corporation on 13 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'B1.E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. l-£INCHIG.E_'+_"'<4'.:IV:VV"':u.."~;..V"'~ V'

wan" PETITION No.17978/2010 (LB-BM:-if'  
BETWEEN:   '

G. Subramanyam,

S/o Govindachetty,

Aged about 64 years,

R/at No.334, 5"' Cross,

Vinayaka Nagar, K.R. Puraml. 
Bangalore. By his GPA holder_,"=._ 
G'. Subramanyam,  'A --. '-
S/o G. Gopalachetty,

Age 36 years, R/at No_.33_4,  A  . 
6"' Cross, VinaYaka;N'a'¥}§-S',      
K.R. Puram, Bangalore.i,_,__j. 'V _:     .  Petitioner

 '(ByVS.rVi: 'FO.'l<.."Po_ri':1appa, Advocate)
AND: A A A J 

1,-" 2 ,_ The Ba ogalpre C"0rp.o.ra'tion,
 'By its Cornrra~Essioner, Bangalore.

2.  -..T'he Adda.-..s,c'::a*ie~commissioner,
Ban'§aEore--Corporation, Mayo Hall,
Ban.galo.re._ 

~  '--The Jdmtcommissioner,

','e».,Ba*ngalore Corporation, Mayo Hall,
' Bangalore.

'  The Assistant Revenue Officer (A.£).V.T.) East,

 "Bangalore Corporation, P.U.B., 17"' Floor, ,
" Bangalore.  Respondents

(By Sri LG. Gachchinamath, Advocate for R-1 to R-4)

This writ petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the records the office of
the R2. Quash Annexure-A dated 16.1.2009 passed by the R2
by issuing the writ in the nature of certiorari; and etc.

This writ petition coming on for Preiiminary in -‘Br’-i:.Gro-up
this day, the Court made the foiiowing: 2′ S

Q B D E 3
The petitioner has raised the chaiiienge’to'”tghé_o~rder,..y:gcl’a,§ed

16.1.2009 (Annexure-A).

2. The facts of the case in bVrief:’avre”‘t.hat the ipyetitioner was
permitted by the Assistant ‘Bruhat Bangalore

Mahanagara Paiike4.(“B_BMR””‘foi::’;sho;t»)_V_yidehhiis order, dated

29.12.2007?”‘(iAn’ne§z.ure3-}3} :to.V:’coiIe’c’t””the parking fee imposing
nine conditions… One”aniori«g_:s’t…:them is the condition that the

petitionerhas to V_pay’V–.Rs-._20′”,’000/~ (Rupees Twenty thousand

._orii~/.) e§.rery”Vrri*-ointh. The said permission came to be

“Assistant Revenue Officer vide impugned

0’5….»order.”d__atedV_«10:.’§i.2009 (Annexure—-A). It is this order, which is

~.f’_j:..ch3Iienged’~ i_n:this writ petition.

Sri P.K. Ponnappa, the iearned counsel for the

‘peti.ti.oner submits that the permission order itself states that the

iii”–«.AVA”petitioner is given the temporary permission to coliect the

R314.

parking fees until the tenders are called for. As the tenders are
not yet cailed for, the permission cannot be revoked or

withdrawn, so contends Sri Ponnappa. He also submits thatagthe

permission is granted by the Assistant Revenue Officer–.parsu’anty

to the Joint Commissioner’s order, dated

Additional Commissioner has no competenfier. to

permission granted by the Joint Coim4’missio_ne~r.

4. Sri Ponnappa Stgbffiitsvg,-thr:3-t’-.then pet’itio.ner§ has not
violated any condition of theIpei’rnfi-ssiolnffferder. Further, the

BBMP has not made.__any””alterr:a’tiy’e_V_arrangements for the

collection ofthue

5. Sr’ril’~–.(_l3.il the learned counsel for the

regspondyeflts iisubmV’i’ts._VV:tVhat:the petitioner h-as suppressed the

.niateriallifacstsi.. ._l-‘ie further submits that as the petitioner was

indul’lg_iril.g__«Ail1~collections, the public have lodged a

compiaint with the police. He also brings to my notice that the

“.::’l.p4e’fei,htioner ‘filed O.S.Nos.26411/O9, 26572/09, 2115/09,

\ll(g§.’li.lVo’;’58O/09 and W.A.l\lo.387/09 seeking similar reliefs. His

T has already been negatived by all the Courts, so contends

Gachchinamath.

HRH

5

10. Admittedly the respondent No.2 is superior to the
respondent No.3 in the hierarchy. There is no legai impediment
for the respondent No.2 (the Additional Commissioner) to aiter

the decisions of the Joint Commissioner (the respondent

11. In the wake of the complaints, this

difficult to iend any credence to the ci_ai.m__of the’pet_it»io’ne’§=.the-atu

he has not violated the terms of the p’e&rrra’iA_Ssiion’}’~. ztfthe [§hiatt.er

of facilitating the parking of the__v”‘ttehicie’sby_ andt”

coliecting the user fee from the_m,~.__what .is«o_f paramount

importance is the convenience. of ;tne’4″”pVdiaé|’icand not of the

coilection aigentsiff, if

12. The’—petitio’ner’s’ any, are to be agitated in a

duly constituited su’it,V_V” Adrrsittediy there is no statutory contract

Vlenteredaintoxitjetyiieen the petitioner and the respondents.

Foir”aaV_li.r:: the above said reasons, this petition is

.._f_j.,.dismissed.~~ No order as to costs.

Sd/3.

JUDGE

MD