Karnataka High Court
Rajev S/O Hiriyanna Shetty vs The Managing Director N W K R T C on 7 August, 2009
WP N0.193§ H200?
in ms men coum er KARNATAKAAV...' '»
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAD 1. 1'
DATED runs was "rm DAY r3F"AUGus$§,'_V§¢}é9_
naroanl"- T' _
wax Howam MR.JusT1ckiv§m§iAr'¢ sr§¢x'rAi§'A:;;geup.é;R V%
wnrr Psrxrzqpz No. ; 1.'Gk1j-'§':_1t_s;?
Between: ' . .. 5 .. .
RAJEEV S10 HERIYANNA SHETFY'-.V V
AGED AB0u'r45Yi:«;ARs, 3'
FROPRIETOR OF'AS¥§1RWAL3_ HOTEL "
NAVALGUND fr.Q:~z.~;AvAL_<3uND _
§IS'F:DHARW§Ai3. "
{By sx-z.sa;"i**;s3;:§':'g:1i,'1ugu=3 ~ "
Anafi _
3. THE'v«MANAGiNG"'I§1RELVF5i§
N.W.K;~R.T;{'.. HFJBL¢ii}.1fJ1S1ON,
; ' EEEIBLE. = '-
' ' ._ 3 - '§:§'~§E i3EVISEdf€A'L"C{}NTROLLER,
:~:.w.:~:4.i~z;.ir.<:. HUBLE swig:-:3N,
_ i~1--£JB£,I'.» AV ' --.
h * 'fHrL".£;s1a:%.<§*:9 MANAGER,
:~;.rm<:;;§e:;'r.{::§ HUBLE DEVISEON,
HUB-i;§'. mcspomnmrrs
8:;i.'1l.:f*.Kulkami, Adv for R3. to 3}
This pet;iti3:1 is fileti iikzldttl" Articl£=$ 226 and 22'? of the
fitixistzitutioxl <3-f Inciia praying to quash the noticeforder
_.:a:it.09.11.2{)O? issueci by RE as being arbitrary, ermneous. and
confiary to law equity; and justice wide Annaxure-I) and etc,
This ptttitinfl coming cm for preiiminary hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the (lourt made the fofiowing:
WPNO.193}.}i2(}0'?
0RD$R
Pctifioner is granted licence to I'u11_--
KSRTC3 Bus Stand, at Navalguncig by....ti;;: '
18.11.2004 to 1741.:/20:39. He-¢_i.s payigg the .:£$qV;1j§i:te .ac¢-we
fee fer the said years. Wh'< =.n..._V"vt.b.cx thus, the
nfspondents started
The said repair wgrk con;g;g§.~.%_¢.¢§ till 29.7.2007.
Since major Fworiiis t.'z1c bus stand itseif
was closed.' :10 customers to the
1'estau1§.x:A1'§'L'Jfi.- Ctgfifiéiiuenfiy, the pefitioncr could
not getéiny; séld period i.€:., from 29.1 2.2006
to .H§":n£i¢_:, filed an appiicafion before the
«.._Aresvj§{.§§1:z(is.'.x:21:%A.for of the licence fee for the said period.
however thvught it fit is waive off 30% of the
3.3::-;1:1":§e ffig' censcquently, demanded 70°/6 of the licence fee
Which. i. S}_'{cv the tune of Rs.81,602/- by issuing notice as per
A fl' " .»5§xi:fic:<11re=--"D'. '?he said netice is impugeci in this Writ
gsfifiorz.
Sri S.Y.Shjva11i, learned C0'£1;£3.$€1 appearing an behalf cf
{he petifionar suibmits that 1116 respondents are not jusstified in
in/R.
'NP M0193} V203'?
demanding 70'/e of the ameunt as the bus stand itself is closed
from 29.11.2086 to 29.7.2007.
Per ccmtra, Sri V.P.K11lka:rni, learned counfséi'
on behalf of respondents argued in support. .v:,xf
order.
2. Since Navalglmd h1li.s{"'s1;ancl."itst1fVfl<;{s":.j'£6tw
because of the major Vxepair _w<):'I'l<_s"v..§:arr"ic(i' -.o;1_.f§n~'netwec11
29. 1 1.2006 to 29.?.2007l;'--§lnc. not have got any
incomeivvlifiilliv Of 1l'I'f:*...l.:"}:}t. liérefortz, in all fairness, the
respondl§:1té.«. 35%.. collected licence fees for the
peri.0<jl_;fmm 1.2{)O€3=_t($'2l§J.?.2007. As the petitioner has not
any flai1it,*--"he should not be penalized. Since
not run because of the major repair works
by fiespandents, the petitioner cannot be an-mpelled
lvlnto pal? tllf:«:_li(Zl€HCC fee during the afonemcntioned period.
3" , llfln vizw cf the same, the following azdezr is made ;
Tim notice Vidfi An:t:1cx13.m~"D' elated 9.31.280'? calling
upon the petifioncr to pay a sum of Rs;.81,6G2/ -v for £116 period
W
WP Novl93}1i20G?
xi
imbetwccn 29.11.2006 to 29.7.2607', stands quashc=.;i--... The
petitioner need net pay the licence fee for the
However, it is made clear that the petifioner
the licence fee, if any, due by him for the-Lrcstjof
Since: it is not in dispute
for the period between 2§..1 "1~;.2oo6'* igo' .V2§f0*ir[.i2e97: a11'd
consequently the pctitiomtr fag; thé "mstayuiant in bus
stand, the interest of the ;:aetitioner's
occupation over p1=r::niseS"ij::*$uc$ti§m1_1 to be extcmied for
eight of licensic shall be
extended-.by. the Vresgponeiénts-~ for a period of eight months.
However, tlid petitiiafiérb his to pay the license face: for the
--------
A ” is disposal ofaccordingly.
EUDGE