Karnataka High Court
The Housing Commissioner And Anr vs Raghavendra S/O Narayanappa ... on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL No.200059/2020 (LA-KHB)
Between:
1. The Housing Commissioner
Karnataka Housing Board
1st and 3rd Floor, Cauvery Bhavan
K.G. Road, Bangalore-560 009
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Karnataka Housing Board
Sub-Division, Vijayapura-586 101
...Appellants
(By Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao, Advocate)
And:
Raghavendra S/o Narayanappa Talapalle
Age About : 42 Years, Occ: Business
R/o Kirana Bazar, Talikoti
Tq. Muddebihal, Dist. Vijayapura-586214
...Respondent
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malilpatil, Advocate)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Rules, praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by Single Judge,
High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in
W.P.No.206276/2016 and dismiss the writ petition
No.206276/2016 (LA-KHB) filed by petitioner.
This appeal is coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this
day, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
The order dated 14.02.2020 in
W.P.No.206276/2016 has been questioned in this writ
appeal. The appellants are the respondents in the writ
petition.
2. The facts are that, the writ petitioner applied
for allotment of a house constructed by the Housing
Board at Talikoti, Muddebihal taluk, Vijayapura district.
By allotment letter dated 16.06.2011, the writ petitioner
was informed that he was allotted a house and asked to
make initial deposit of Rs.30,000/- for making allotment.
He made that payment. It appears that the Housing
Board failed to provide amenities to the allottees of the
houses and that there was no developmental work for
some time. Only on 03.04.2014, the Housing Board
deposited a sum of Rs.17,61,000/- to the municipality
for supply of water. Then on 07.11.2014, the Housing
Board called upon the writ petitioner as per Annexure-G
to deposit a sum of Rs.15,20,650/- in connection with
the allotment of house. In order to make payment of
the amount specified in the demand notice, the writ
petitioner obtained loan from the bank and made
payment on 03.12.2014. On 28.10.2016, the Housing
Board issued a notice to the writ petitioner calling upon
him to make payment of Rs.6,41,600/- being penal
interest for belated payment. Writ petitioner challenged
the notice dated 28.10.2016 by filing writ petition. The
writ court quashed the demand notice but directed the
writ petitioner to pay interest @ 8% from 16.06.2011
till 03.12.2014, i.e., the date on which the petitioner
made payment of Rs.15,20,650/- .
3. Learned counsel for the Housing Board
Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao submits that as per condition
No.4 of the allotment letter, the Housing Board would
levy interest and therefore interest was levied on the
writ petitioner as per Annexure-L. Imposition of penalty
for late payment is a policy matter which cannot be
questioned in the writ jurisdiction. But
Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil refutes the argument of
Sri Mogha Sudhakar Rao and submits that Annexure-L
did not indicate that interest would be levied in case
payment was made belatedly and what is stated in
Annexure-L is that 25% of the initial deposit would be
forfeited. Since Annexure-L is silent about levying of
interest, imposition of interest on the writ petitioner was
illegal and rightly the writ court came to conclusion to
quash the notice dated 28.10.2016.
4. In the light of the points of arguments, if we
examine the rival contentions what we find is that it is
not in dispute that allotment letter was issued to the
writ petitioner on 16.06.2011 and that he made initial
payment of Rs.30,000/-. Only after receiving the
demand notice as per Annexure-G, he made further
payment of Rs.15,20,650/- on 03.12.2014. This
payment was within 10 days time from the date of
receiving of demand notice as per Annexure-G. It is
clearly mentioned in Annexure-G that in case of failure
to make payment, 25% of the initial payment would be
forfeited and there is no indication in the demand notice
that if payment was not made within 10 days, interest
would be levied. However, Annexure-A, the allotment
letter contains some terms and conditions. Condition
No.4 states that in case payment is made belatedly
interest would be levied. Therefore, it may be stated
that interest can certainly be levied, but for what period
is the question that too when the Housing Board failed
to make any amount to the municipality for supply of
water. According to learned single judge, the writ
petitioner has to pay interest @ 8% from 16.06.2011 till
03.12.2014. This, in our opinion stands to reasons,
because after making initial payment of Rs.30,000/- on
16.06.2011, till 03.12.2014, he did not make any
payment. It was only after receiving the demand notice
as per Annexure-G that he made payment of
Rs.15,20,650/-. Therefore the direction given by the
writ court to the writ petitioner for paying the interest
from 16.06.2011 till 03.12.2014 is justifiable. Any
demand for interest for the subsequent period is illegal.
We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Therefore writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
