Review Petition No. 300 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 300 OF 2021 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO. 301 OF 2021 REVIEW PETITION NO. 302 OF 2021 IN RP No. 300/2021 BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRIDEVI EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.,) KUVEMPU NAGARA, CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.VIJAYAKUMAR C.K., S/O C.M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITIES - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP NO. 2192/2018(LB- RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. IN RP NO. 301/2021 BETWEEN: 1. NAGESH EDUCATION TRUST (REGD). GAYATHRI EXTENSION NAGASANDRA ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.K.NAGESH S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR R/AT NO.87, VIVEKANANDANAGARA HASSAN – 573 101. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITIES M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ...RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP NO. 2193/2018(LB-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR IN RP NO. 302/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VIVEKANANDA VIDYA SAMSTHE(REGD.), RAGHAVENDRA SAWMILL ROAD GAYATHRI EXTENSION CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.GEETHA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA SAWMILL ROAD GAYATHRI EXTENSION CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITIES M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101. (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ...RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP NO. 8963/2018(LB-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of an order passed on 13.8.2021. The reason for presenting the review petitions calling in question the said order is, that this Court has not answered the statutory mandate of Section 94 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short) and has followed a communication dated 23-02-2018 and directed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR consideration of the representation of the petitioners qua clause 8 therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Manjunath Prasad H N, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri H Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the orders passed by the coordinate bench, on the same issue, were not brought to the notice of this Court. The issue, in the case at hand is, whether the educational institutions which construct the building or lease the land to particular educational institutions who would construct the Building or run educational institutions in the constructed building are liable to pay tax or not. The coordinate benches are said to have held otherwise. The only order that is passed by this Court is to consider the representation of these petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would now seek to contend that the order passed runs counter to the statute and it is in error. An erroneous order cannot become a subject matter of review, as it would amount to rehearing the entire matter, sitting in appeal over the order under the garb of review. 5. The Apex Court, considering the circumstances in which the review could be entertained and review could not be, in the case of KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI1 has held as follows: “Summary of the principles
Decision
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144: (1922) 16 LW 37: AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526: (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337: JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the its soundness or order, undermines results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” (Emphasis supplied) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21478 RP No. 300 of 2021 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021 RP No. 302 of 2021 HC-KAR 6. Therefore, in the review petitions, hearing the matter all over again, would be sitting in an appeal, over the judgment under review, which is not the scope of review, as held by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA. In that light, petitioners now wanting this Court to correct the order, cannot become the subject matter of review. I iterate that the only order that is passed is consideration of the representation of the petitioners qua clause 8 of the communication, the consideration is undoubtedly in accordance with law. Finding no merit in the review petitions filed, petitions stand disposed. Interim order, of any kind subsisting, shall stand dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30