Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 6046 Kant

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.7951 OF 2013 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
7TH FLOOR, DELTA TOWER,
SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK,
NO.7, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,
GROUP LEGAL AND COMPANY SECRETARY
MR. S RAMAPRASAD.
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE AND
    SRI. DHARMA TEJ KONERU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
   DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
   M S BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
   BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
   BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J C ROAD,
   BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                   2



3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER-EAST,
   BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
   MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.

4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
   SHANTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION,
   BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
   BANGALORE.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. S H PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION
ISSUED BY THE R1, DATED 31.1.09, PUBLISHED IN THE
O.G.DT.2.2.09, AS ANN-A TO THE W.P. AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                               ORDER

Petitioner-Company is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

calling in question the Rate Notification dated 31.01.2009, a copy

whereof is at Annexure - A issued by the respondent BBMP under

section 108(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976

which provides for classification of areas or streets for the purpose

of rating & taxing. After service of notice, the respondents having

entered appearance through their advocates resist the Writ petition

making submission in justification of the said Notification.

2. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially

covered by the judgment in W.P.No.56279/2015 between

MANYATA PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA and others, disposed off by a learned Coordinate

Judge of this Court on 25.5.2016, denying relief to a similarly

circumstanced litigant. There is absolutely no reason for this Court

to deviate from the said view, no special circumstances therefor

having been established.

3. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents

submit that when a matter is substantially covered, no cause would

be served by keeping this petition on file, notwithstanding the

pendency of the Writ Appeal No.1528/2016 arising from the said

judgment. They also agree that petitioner may seek benefit of the

outcome of the said appeal by making appropriate representation

after its disposal. There is force in this submission.

4. The above apart, a report was called for & accordingly is

filed by the respondent-BBMP which prima facie shows that the

building in question has got central A.C. facility, arguably, a portion

thereof not having the benefit of cooling. It hardly needs to be

stated that in matters of this kind every nook and corner of the

building need not have the cooling facilities; what has to be seen is,

whether broadly and substantially the building has the central A.C

facility, which according to the report it has.

5. The vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner that the impugned notification in question consciously

employs the word 'samagra' which literally means 'in entirety' and

therefore, the central A.C. facility of cooling should animate every

nook & corner of the building cannot be countenanced without

offending common sense. The words in a legislation in general and

in a subordinate legislation as the one at hands in particular have

to be construed in general parlance, inasmuch as we are not

operating in the pharmaceutical laboratory. After all, the

subordinate legislations of the kind address the common rate

payers and therefore, the text thereof has to be construed as the

common men would do. It is profitable to recall the observations of

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in TOWNE vs. EISNER 23 , had

said "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the

skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content

according to the circumstances and time in which it is used...".

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off

reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek its revival in the event,

relief is granted to the litigant in the cognate Writ Appeal or to

make a representation to the respondent - BBMP for seeking

benefit thereunder.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc