SRI P SUNIL KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
WP/47843/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01023413201812 December 2018Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.SUJATHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court expressed reservations about entertaining the PIL as it involved complex questions of fact that could not be determined in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that respondents engaged in real estate business were involved in benami transactions and amassed wealth through illegal activities. The petitioner sought an investigation into these activities.

What were the issues?

Whether a PIL is the appropriate forum to investigate allegations of benami transactions and illegal wealth accumulation, which involve intricate factual determinations.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.No.47843/2018

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO.47843 OF 2018 (GM-RES) PIL

BETWEEN:

SRI P. SUNIL KUMAR S/O P. PONNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.179, SEENAPPA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH ‘A’ CROSS, YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET, NAGAVARA PALYA, C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560093 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVINDARAJ. K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 59, HMT BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR BALLARI ROAD, DENA BANK COLONY GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560032

2.

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027

W.P.No.47843/2018

- 2 -

3.

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE–560001

4.

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP OFFICE BUILDINGS N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 BY ITS HEAD ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

GENERAL OF POLICE

5.

THE AREA ENGINEER BBMP, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR NAGAVARA PALYA,

BANGALORE-560093

6.

V. MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED R/AT NO.80, NAGAVARAPALYA MAIN ROAD C V RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 093

7.

SRI S. MOHAMMED SAMADH AGED MAJOR S/O V. MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA R/AT NO.80, NAGAVARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 093

8.

SURESH SALARIYA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE K.C. SALARIYA R/AT NO.12/1, VERSOVA LAYOUT C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 093

9.

SRI ROHIT SALARIYA AGED MAJOR S/O SUBASH SALARIYA R/AT NO.12/1, VERSOVA LAYOUT

W.P.No.47843/2018

- 3 - C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 093

10.

SMT. VAGDEVI AGED MAJOR NO.263, TANK ROAD 2ND CROSS, KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-560 036 ...RESPONDENTS ---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-5 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST R-6 TO R-10 BASED ON THE COMPLAINTS, REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURES-K, L AND M AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION AS REQUIRED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER By way of this petition, filed as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’), the petitioner seeks to allege that the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and their family members, who are engaged in real estate business, had entered into several ‘benami’ transactions and have amassed huge wealth in illegal activities and without accounting; and, therefore, it is necessary to investigate into their activities. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the record, we have expressed reservations

W.P.No.47843/2018

- 4 - in entertaining this petition as a PIL, where the petitioner seeks to allege the so-called ‘benami’ transactions by the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and the matter involves several such questions of fact, which cannot be determined in the writ jurisdiction. Upon our expressing reservations thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw. Taking note of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are permitting the petitioner to withdraw, but with a note of caution that any other attempt by the petitioner in unnecessarily seeking to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court may be visited with penalisation. With the observations foregoing, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →