Karnataka High Court orders Tumakuru City Corporation to decide on application to adjust excess property tax

HC orders Tumakuru City Corporation to decide on application to adjust excess property tax.

The pendency of a writ petition shall not, by itself, be treated as a ground to withhold consideration of representations or applications filed prior thereto, the High Court of Karnataka has observed in a recent judgement. 

“Unless there is a specific order of stay or restraint passed by a competent court, authorities are obligated to discharge their statutory and administrative duties by passing timely orders,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, while directing the state government to issue suitable instructions to all subordinate offices in this
regard. 

The petitioner, B G Srinivasa Rao, a resident of Tumakuru, had filed a representation to the city corporation in 2017, requesting to adjust excess property tax paid by him during the previous
years. 

He filed the writ petition in 2018 after the authorities did not respond to his representation. During the hearing, the Tumakuru City Corporation contended that it could not take a decision on the representation since the petition was pending in the high court. 

The court called such submission
untenable. 

“It is a settled position of law that every statutory or government authority, upon receipt of a representation or application, is required to apply its mind, take a decision within a reasonable period, and communicate such decision to the affected party by way of a speaking order. Administrative authorities cannot cite the pendency of judicial proceedings as a justification for inaction, particularly when the grievance before the Court itself arises from such inaction due to non-consideration of such representations,” Justice Govindaraj
said. 

The court further said, “The conduct of the respondents in keeping the representations pending for several years without passing any order whatsoever is arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. Administrative delay of this nature undermines public confidence in governance and results in avoidable litigation before constitutional courts.”

The court directed the Corporation to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in August 2017 within 60 days. “It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the representation,” the
court said.