SRI SAI RAMAKRISHNA KARUTURI vs. UNION OF INDIA

W.A.No.971/2018

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT APPEAL NO.971 OF 2018 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI.SAI RAMAKRISHNA KARUTURI S/O KARUTURI SURYA RAO THE HONORARY CONSULATE OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS #204, EMBASSY CENTRE NO.11, CRESCENT ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI.HALAPPA

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.RAGHU H.P., ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

PARLIAMENT SADAN

NEW DELHI – 110 001

59, HMT BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR

W.A.No.971/2018

- 2 -

BALLARI ROAD, DENA BANK COLONY

GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032

CIRCLE – 4(1)(1), ROOM NO.229

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUS DEPOT

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) --- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.22849/2017 (T-IT) PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ALLOW THE W.P.NO.22849/2017.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Having regard to the circumstances of the case, while ignoring the question of delay, we had examined the matter on 04.04.2018; and after having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the overall circumstances, ordered as under:

“In the appellant’s challenge to the proceedings against him on the ground of restrictions on entry into diplomatic premises under the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, the learned Single Judge

W.A.No.971/2018

- 3 -

has expressed reservations on such submissions, while observing as under:

“The said immunity as such cannot be claimed by a person even though he is appointed as Honorary Consulate of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, when he is carrying on his business activities also in the same premises, so long as the action is being taken under the provisions of the Income Tax Act or other similar enactments. His other business activities has nothing to do with the consular activities carried on in the very same premises. If the noticee under section 131 of the Act himself has violated the sanctity of the consular premises by carrying on his other business activities in the same premises for which no specific permission was given to him, then he cannot claim any such immunity under the Act of 1972 of the Vienna Convention.”

Even after making the observations aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has looked for a practical solution of the matter and in fact, has passed the order more or less with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant that the respondent–Assistant Commissioner would summon the petitioner/appellant to his own office under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the petitioner/appellant would not object to such a course. The learned Single Judge has concluded on the petition with the following observations and directions:-

“7. Be that as it may, the only issue raised before this court and agreed by the

W.A.No.971/2018

- 4 -

learned counsel for the Department has a practical solution in the matter. The respondent-Assistant Commissioner can summon the petitioner to his own office under Section 131 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has fairly agreed that the petitioner would not object to it.

On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned counsel, Sri K.V.Aravind has appeared for the respondents and has submitted that, as per his instructions, the petitioner has not responded to the summons under Section 131 of the Act and, therefore, the authorities need to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings.

Having examined the matter in its totality, we have expressed reservations that, despite having agreed before the learned Single Judge of properly responding to the summons under Section 131 of the Act, the petitioner/appellant is not even responding to the same.

W.A.No.971/2018

- 5 -

Upon our expressing reservations thus, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant initially sought 30 days’ time for the petitioner/appellant to visit the office of the respondent No.3. However, we declined this prayer for granting of such an excessive time. Ultimately, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner/appellant would attend the office of the respondent No.3 –Assistant Commissioner on 09.04.2018. We are inclined to grant the indulgence to this extent.

Though for what has been observed hereinabove, this appeal could have been disposed of at this stage itself, but in the overall circumstances, we deem it appropriate to keep this matter pending so as to take note of the proceedings on 09.04.2018.

List this matter on 11.04.2018.”

Learned counsel for the parties submit that pursuant to the order aforesaid, the appellant did appear before the Officer concerned on 09.04.2018 but, for various reasons, his statement could not be concluded and was not signed by him.

We are not entering into other aspects of submissions for the reason that the learned counsel for the parties frankly submit that, in any case, the appellant has again appeared

W.A.No.971/2018

- 6 -

today before the Officer concerned and his statement has been concluded; and that no further lis remains in the matter.

In view of the above, this appeal is treated as infructuous and stands disposed of as such.

All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

AHB