M.S. Jaikumar Prop Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
bangalore mahanagara palike - advertisement bye laws-sub-clause (ii) of bye law no. 10-petitioners carrying out door advertising within the limits of corporation-petitioners paying advertisement tax-petitioners application for renewal of the registration as advertisers-rejected-pleaded against-held-a licensed advertiser before advertising or displaying advertisements shall satisfy himself that the tax due there from has been paid and approval of the commissioner has to be obtained thereafter-on facts-held-petitioners displaying the advertisement without paying the arrears of advertisement tax and without obtaining permission from the authorities-order passed by the authorities is justified. - sections 8 & 23 (as amended by act 39/2005): [chidananda ullal & h.n. nagamohan das, jj] succession, opened earlier to the amended act 39/2005 applicability of amended provisions to such cases held, the provisions of the amended act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended act 39/2005 coming into force. on facts held, the succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. further, it is not in dispute that k died in the year 1969. on the demise of k in 1969, the succession is opened. as per the hindu succession act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. in the year 1969 k and his son deceased defendant no.4- d are the two persons who are the coparceners of the joint family. it is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of k. on a notional partition k is entitled for half share and his son deceased. d is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. after the demise of k in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 heirs. class i heirs in the instant case are deceased wife y , three daughters by name p n ka and the only son d and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late k . therefore, the amended provisions of hindu succession act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of k. hindu law-- marriage: [chidanada ullal & h.n. nagamohan das, jj] presumption as to - long spell of living together d and y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -y gave birth to a son during that time - held, it is a rebuttable presumption. except bare denial of the marriage between d and y, defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. a heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. the relationship between d and y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son hindu succession act,1956[c.a.no.30/1956] -- section 6: [as amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [chidananda ullal & h.n.nagamohan das, jj] contention raised that the three daughter of d through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -d expired oin 1969 - held, when succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. in this case succession opened in 1969. [decision in sugula bai v gundappa amareddy, ilr 2007 kar 4790 is implied overruled in sheela devi & ors. v lal chand & anr. 2006 (8) scc 581]. - iii) there are no good grounds for granting renewal of his registration as per relevant provisions of the mahanagara palike. therefore, i do not find any justification or good grounds to entertain the instant writ petitions.ordern.k. patil, j1 in all these writ petitions, petitioners assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 14th june 2004, communication dated 27th october 2003 and the rejection order dated 11th march 2004 respectively vide annexure a in all the three writ petitions, issued by second respondent, have presented the instant writ petitions.2. the only grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, petitioners have filed the applications for renewal of the registration as advertisers from second respondent to carryout outdoor advertising within the limits of first respondent-mahanagara palike and petitioners have been displaying advertisements on the hoarding, neo-signs erected by the petitioners' advertising agency and paying advertisement tax to the mahanagara palike in respect of the displays made by them. the said applications filed by petitioners had come up for consideration before the second respondent and the second respondent, after considering the request of petitioners, has rejected the applications on the ground that, petitioners have illegally been advertising without paying the taxes and without obtaining written permission from the mahanagara palike contrary to the advertisement bye laws and that, petitioners are also due to pay the advertisement taxes to the palike. therefore, the applications filed by them were rejected with an observation that, there is no provision to reconsider their request once again. being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, communication and the rejection order, as stated above, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petitions.3. i have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. after careful perusal of the impugned endorsement, communication and the rejection order, it emerges that, the request of petitioners has been rejected on grounds more than one. apart from other grounds, the request of these petitioners are rejected on three grounds. i) petitioner has been displaying the advertisements illegally within the jurisdiction of mahanagara palike; ii) there are dues in respect of payment of advertisement taxes to mahanagar palike; iii) there are no good grounds for granting renewal of his registration as per relevant provisions of the mahanagara palike. as per sub-clause (ii) of bye law no. 10 of the advertisement bye laws of the mahanagara palike, 'a licenced advertiser shall before displaying or causing the display of advertisements shall satisfy himself that, the tax due thereon has been paid and the commissioner's approval obtained thereafter.' (emphasis supplied). in the instant case, it is the stand of mahanagara palike that, petitioners are liable to pay huge amount of advertisement taxes and without paying the arrears of advertisement taxes and without taking permission in writing, they are illegally displaying the advertisement within the limits of the mahanagara palike, which is impermissible under the relevant advertisement bye-laws of the mahanagara palike. after careful perusal of the relevant provision of the advertisement bye law, as extracted above, and the reasoning given by second respondent for rejecting the applications filed by petitioners for renewal, i do not find any error much less irregularity as such committed by the said authority, nor petitioners have produced any communication issued by the competent authority of the mahanagara palike to substantiate their case that, there is no arrears of advertisement tax, to be paid by them to the mahanagara palike. therefore, i do not find any justification or good grounds to entertain the instant writ petitions.4. further, so far as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that, petitioners, earlier had given complaint to lokayukta against the mahanagara palike officials and therefore, respondents are taking vengeance against the petitioners by discriminating and bypassing vindictive orders to see that, petitioners' business is closed once and for all. the said submission and the specific ground taken by petitioners in the instant writ petitions cannot be accepted for the reason that, the minimum requirement for getting renewal of registration, as per the relevant provision of the advertisement bye law, as extracted above is that, there should not be any dues pending from a person seeking such renewal. moreover, petitioners have also not produced any authenticated document or 'no due certificate issued by the competent authority of the mahanagara palike to establish that, petitioners are not due in payment of any advertisement taxes to mahanagara palike.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are dismissed as misconceived.6. with these observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.K. Patil, J

1 In all these Writ Petitions, Petitioners assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 14th June 2004, communication dated 27th October 2003 and the rejection order dated 11th March 2004 respectively vide Annexure A in all the three Writ Petitions, issued by second respondent, have presented the instant Writ Petitions.

2. The only grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, petitioners have filed the applications for renewal of the registration as advertisers from second respondent to carryout outdoor advertising within the limits of First Respondent-Mahanagara Palike and petitioners have been displaying advertisements on the hoarding, Neo-signs erected by the petitioners' Advertising Agency and paying advertisement tax to the Mahanagara Palike in respect of the displays made by them. The said applications filed by petitioners had come up for consideration before the Second Respondent and the Second Respondent, after considering the request of petitioners, has rejected the applications on the ground that, petitioners have illegally been advertising without paying the taxes and without obtaining written permission from the Mahanagara Palike contrary to the Advertisement bye Laws and that, petitioners are also due to pay the Advertisement taxes to the Palike. Therefore, the applications filed by them were rejected with an observation that, there is no provision to reconsider their request once again. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, communication and the rejection order, as stated above, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant Writ Petitions.

3. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Learned Counsel appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the impugned endorsement, communication and the rejection order, it emerges that, the request of petitioners has been rejected on grounds more than one. Apart from other grounds, the request of these petitioners are rejected on three grounds. i) petitioner has been displaying the advertisements illegally within the jurisdiction of Mahanagara Palike; ii) there are dues in respect of payment of advertisement taxes to Mahanagar Palike; iii) there are no good grounds for granting renewal of his registration as per relevant provisions of the Mahanagara Palike. As per Sub-clause (ii) of bye law No. 10 of the Advertisement bye laws of the Mahanagara Palike, 'A licenced advertiser shall before displaying or causing the display of advertisements shall satisfy himself that, the tax due thereon has been paid and the Commissioner's approval obtained thereafter.' (emphasis supplied). In the instant case, it is the stand of Mahanagara Palike that, petitioners are liable to pay huge amount of advertisement taxes and without paying the arrears of advertisement taxes and without taking permission in writing, they are illegally displaying the advertisement within the limits of the Mahanagara Palike, which is impermissible under the relevant Advertisement bye-laws of the Mahanagara Palike. After careful perusal of the relevant provision of the Advertisement bye law, as extracted above, and the reasoning given by Second Respondent for rejecting the applications filed by petitioners for renewal, I do not find any error much less irregularity as such committed by the said authority, nor petitioners have produced any communication issued by the competent authority of the Mahanagara Palike to substantiate their case that, there is no arrears of advertisement tax, to be paid by them to the Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, I do not find any justification or good grounds to entertain the instant Writ Petitions.

4. Further, so far as the submission made by Learned Counsel for petitioners that, petitioners, earlier had given complaint to Lokayukta against the Mahanagara Palike officials and therefore, respondents are taking vengeance against the petitioners by discriminating and bypassing vindictive orders to see that, petitioners' business is closed once and for all. The said submission and the specific ground taken by petitioners in the instant Writ Petitions cannot be accepted for the reason that, the minimum requirement for getting renewal of registration, as per the relevant provision of the Advertisement bye law, as extracted above is that, there should not be any dues pending from a person seeking such renewal. Moreover, petitioners have also not produced any authenticated document or 'No due Certificate issued by the competent authority of the Mahanagara Palike to establish that, petitioners are not due in payment of any advertisement taxes to Mahanagara Palike.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the Writ Petitions filed by petitioners are dismissed as misconceived.

6. With these observations, the Writ Petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of.