SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a fall out of the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court declaring the Bye-laws under which ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, security deposit etc., was sought to be levied, as ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable at the hands of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP'), amendments were made to the BBMP Act. Several hundreds of petitions are filed by residents and builders raising a challenge to the amendments and the consequential imposts/levy in terms of demands raised by the respondent - BBMP. Therefore, all these writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In Mr. Sunderam Shetty and Others Vs. State of Karnataka rep. by its Secretary, Urban Development Department and Others,ILR 2021 KAR 3968. the co-ordinate bench considered whether the impugned imposts/fee suffer from want of legal sanction, insofar as ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, security deposit, lake rejuvenation fee, service charges at 1% of the amount payable to the Palike from out of Building Construction Workers cess - Labour cess. It was held that the levy and collection did not have any legal basis and such action was based on Circulars which had no force of law. Accordingly, Circulars dtd. 4/9/2015 and 27/1/2017 issued by the BBMP were quashed and set aside. However, it was also held that the State or the BBMP are not precluded from bringing in the impugned levies under the provisions of the Act or the Rules by making suitable amendments to the Act and the Rules. As a consequence, the respondent - State and the BBMP chose to amend and insert the impugned provisions in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BBMP Act', for short), with retrospective effect for validation of fee and penalty collected by the BBMP at the time of sanction of building plans and grant of commencement certificate and completion certificate to buildings and also to provide exemption or concession to Boards or Corporations or Organisations owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government from the payment of such fee.

(3.) One of the main grounds of attack is that the impugned provisions do not in any way set out to change the circumstances under which the imposts/levy were declared as ultra vires in Sunderam Shetty. It is contended that such action is an attempt to nullify the judgment of this Court, without taking due care to remove the basis of the judgment. Several other grounds are raised challenging the impugned amendments and therefore, it would be better to proceed enumerating the broad grounds.