(1.) The legality and correctness of the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6520/2007 dated 7-7-2009 is called in question in this appeal. St. Joseph Educational Society situated at Chamarajnagar Town is aggrieved by the levy of developmental fee of Rs. 1,82,390/- by the appellant invoking Section 18 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 demanding the appellant herein to refund the same on the ground that appellant did not refund the fee remitted by the school to the municipality. The Writ Petition was filed praying to quash the reply to legal notice dated 11-1-2007 holding that the fees collected towards development as also null and void and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner - Urban Development Authority to reimburse the development fees to a tune of Rs. 1,82,390/- and to grant such other reliefs.
(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that it is a charitable institution imparting education reserving 80% of its seats to the students belong to backward classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Christians by collecting a nominal fee and that the institution is not making any profit and the institution is running to serve the backward classes in order to bring them to the main stream of the society. Since the class rooms were not sufficient for the strength of the students of the school, with an intention to add additional class rooms, they approached the municipality for sanctioning license and plan. In order to get the license and plan sanctioned, the petitioner was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,82,390/- as developmental charges, though it was brought to the notice of the authorities that it is a charitable institution and not required to make the said payment the authorities did not agree to exempt it. Therefore, the writ petitioner was compelled to deposit the sum and obtained the sanctioned plan thereafter, a demand was made by the writ petitioner for refund of the amount remitted by it. Since there was a refusal, the writ petition came to be filed.
(3.) The writ petition was resisted on two grounds. The main ground of attack was that writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 18(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Secondly, it was contended that the developmental fee has been collected based on the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. In the circumstances, it was requested to dismiss the writ petition.