High Court · 2011

SRI. .i)nY.\ IIOIJ..\. Sr C J3 F OR I1I SRl.ILSAR CT n EVil . F Sl! t A IT)P 1(2’ IYt fliTs wrr PTEAL RILED I ;S 4 fl fllF KARNAiAK Hi(;ii Cot. Ri AC I PRViNc; If) SE F ASIDF TITE ORPER PSSEi) J\ mr \WI PLIITTflN NO 9.r3012007 )A1L’D .3o/O6/OO9 “a\ NQ2Jo2pF 201(’ 1*. flVEEN : 1-TF BANGALORF MAEL\N C4R’ P-iLIKL. NR SQUARE K\NGALORF0 5b() fbi RESEN rED bY II’S (O’v 55 F CL1. ( DMMISS E 13A”GAI. OW TI I \15 \AtLI ft FR\T( C —‘Ii’’’\ llRP(r. tIflc.,’J ‘I .i\ ()U” (V Ji — • is.’ • f . I . • • I ; •; MANAGER - L•EGAL, SRI. SAFEER i••• HMED. (BY SRI GURURPJ AND ASSTS,) * * * * * RESPONDENTS ‘ELlIS WRIT APPEAL FILER C/S 4 OF THE KARNATARA TARE lilt ORDER F \SLD IiG4 COt RI IN THE WRIT PETITION NO9S6S/2007 DATED 30/06/2009. 1 1IA AG 10 SE \( WA P’O,2405 OF 2010 BETWEEN:

1. THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE. NP SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED HY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. TIlE SPECIAL COMNIISS1ONER BR//HAT BANGAL•ORE• NIAHANAGARA PALIKE. NP SQUARE, BANOALORE-560 002. (BY S RI R.SUBRAMANYA, AD’!. FOR M/S.ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS..I APPELLANTS AND: 14/S .H1NDFSTAN COCA-COLE ‘ (H XE D ( SaLES & LAIN OEFICL AT I.’O.44 /1, BELLAF.Y ROAD, KODICEHALLI GATE, HEBBAL, BANOALORR-560 092 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (DISTRII3LTION) SRI \IL KUMAR \GARWAL RESPOI.’DENTS (BY SRI RRFRP SAD, ADV) THIS WRIT DPPEAL FILED U/S 4 OP TFIE KARNATAKA ‘11011 COURFACI PRAYING 20 SET ASIDE LIE ORDER PASSED IN TH F.. WRIT PFTITT ON NO 9868/2007 DATED 30/06/2009 * WA NO2403 OF 20 IC) BETWEEN:

1. BANGALORE P4A1 j4frj\f/j\ PALIKE, NRSQUARE, BANOALORE560 002 REP. BY IT. COMMISSIONER 2 THE: SPECIAL COMMISSIONER. BRI HAT BYNC WORE MAIL\NACARA PALIKL AR SQUARE. BANGALORE-560 002. 3 TEl P DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [E*\XAT1ON AND RESOERCE) B RCALORE \I \HANAOARA Xl IKE LLRSQIJARE, BANOALORE-560 002. rp.:[ 4 REVENUE OFFICER, Am ERTISEMEN F SECTION B WC NEORE U U IANAGARA Xl IKE \ P SOFAPp I NC XI (3P1 *fl00? FR SRI R. S.U BRAMANYA. ABE FC)P ‘I LAN U, AN B: I AR / S ASIAN PAl N::*I.*5 LTD. R.EGISTERED OFFICE Al. * \ I 4 ASF 10K IIARANAI ‘ CLI NV’.V’sjlLV; ‘JM1)7-INflI\ LOflOtlVtlh. 1& !IVH.LJAI9114-II)1V\(iItX-IHt1’ 3Sid1! flINVi1>1]SK1\1VA%.T44 qoqy‘qNiVfl\V2 slI.UI(13.1Cls3Ndaki N3!)VS’\LV3NV \WjII‘1111-iNUOflr81 flIVWNUflIA()ai.is:tu.t ANVJ2bJ3%431F13Si-IAll(13JX3&4NdaN VIRI.U)SVXV1-lUL tooQt,ç-3fl9yg S1N3mioasmi: -ll-i&IVHdHYlicliNcNvIj3cLOYHQViii)1IVWCi fl) miHO-IVt)UK1dHNf’VHVVSVWINS111NOdcLcs IiNs kYk-JA’NN)I (1ISSVd113(1 ) (Out 44w* 1P1WSI ‘14-14th .)McVHcIiiVlb %‘(LiIlAd ‘-INC -)‘sVJ ,.‘lk’i(I-l (l’I\O 01-‘ilAfl’‘)1.1)1 ttäk1nflI)\‘H‘\ )(.Riu n-i 6‘ ,j)I,j —f’\ I’ •‘1 — i. — - 8 ljJ VA .R.SQ \RF 4TK thN(iAt.( RL G(’ ‘)02. PPIDI.L VVfS 1! ‘V ) 101 “ SIt 5)t

1..! Li i \ND. tNt FTMOR BLO M SIILI(I1lNS)NLS RSC IHrD. (HI ‘H “ 1 LB L 6 \O.9. HOST R ROAD. I3ANGAT oRE 560 02’i REPRESE’TED BY ITh I) Y ENER MANAGF’ S .‘4INCRVII I E I (HY’RI.(LRi R%’ AND ASSTh I •h. * SP( IN K II- 41 ER. N( ) SET IlL T CO RI AC R THE nri PP flTION NO.9aN/2007 D:VIED 31’, fJ(”2f’(19 SIDE TIE RDLI ASS ., ‘1fF’ L A’ ‘I .\a e. (‘MINt Q’t I I I uR Id4 ‘ FAi’TNCS IIa IL L JUDGMENT C. a I • • c • :. •%‘1j — i ‘i 1 I••’ • •‘ •! ;:. : 1 N t 14(11 lilt si.i 1)0 t Is i C c di ‘iii’ ‘1 1 T 1 ))Jc rd— on tiit tl(j)% 1) the r”pcniclent tilt dI’pl i td. 11 sn 1 i iIa 1 1 niinc i to the tnntesting respondent s dirt erIn th in to pa; the a’ on acI ertist ment 1 . QS d 591B3 . d h3 them on th private ht p5 iu iii a i’t ichides The nntnnng u. sponth ni s submitted a i ept e’entation to 11w ‘ippcllaii b exemp x t. n(Ie cli is lb. ol (i -‘ p ii . c S t o 1 . - il ht Kaniataka 4uiucipa Coipoiatirm Act 1J76. The appelldflt iey cled the n quest for xempttni a The coinest’t’g iesp’)i rknts agjau cc’ b - thc —iii] o’xler fi.td tint putition’ 11-ic k tni 1 S11141 J t i.t. v ft itt1 i-h tilt. lein id a at ii the crit cli i: ‘ -ii’ni’ Ik4ai -md tiji’, qua’1 J ii !i flhsallil lift” — ti. (1 ‘ An1c ‘-*1 4 - /4 SiLl Ii t1ciii’sn’ £ 14 t’ iIu’4 “is Wi ciPt ii- iii -11 t d i hi’) eli 11111 ii 1’i(’ ii” I .4 4 tO exemption from payment of rn.1c appellant conducted enquiry and passed the impugned order at Annexure-F rejecting the request of the respondents tax on advertisement. The contesting respondents aggrieved by the said order filed writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has found that case of the contesting respondents is covered under clause (N of third proviso to Section 134 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and thus quashed the order. The appellant aggrieved by the said order has filed these appeals. F. On a stem scrutiny of the impugned order at Annexure it appears that the enquiry conducted and an opportunity given to the contesting respondents does not appear to be fair and proper. The private shop owners. who have displayed the sign-boards of the contesting respondents, are not served with notice and they are not examined to find out whether the display of the sign-boards of the respondents was with an I Cr II intention to promote the sale of the products of the contesting respondents in question, which are being sold In their shops. In that view of the matter. the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Annexure-F and consequential orders pursuant to Annexure-F are also set aside. The appellant has to reconsider the claim for exemption by holding proper enquiry with due notice to the shop owners and also due opportunity to the contesting respondents. Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed. Sd,’: JUDGE Sd/I. JUDGE AKD