Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   7177 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.13303 OF 2009)  

M/S.ISWARYA ASSOCIATES ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE BRUHATH BANGALORE  MAHANAGARA PALIKE & ANR.          ...RESPONDENTS       

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal is  directed against  the judgment  and order  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  at  Bangalore  in  Writ  

Appeal No.387 of 2009, dated 25.02.2009 whereby the High Court  

has dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant herein.  

3. By  proceedings  dated  26.12.2008,  the  Assistant  Revenue  

Officer, the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('the B.B.M.P.'  

for  short),  had  granted  temporary  license/permission  to  the  

appellant  herein  for  collection  of  the  parking  fee  in  a  

particular area.  Subsequently, by its order dated 02.01.2009,  

the respondents have cancelled the license/ permission granted  

by  the  Assistant  Revenue  Officer.  It  is  this  action  of  the  

respondents which had prompted the appellant herein to approach  

the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.580 of 2009.

4.   The  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  while  

entertaining  the  petition,  had  refused  to  grant  the  interim

Page 2

order sought for by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the  

appellant  had  filed  Writ  Appeal  No.387  of  2009  before  the  

Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court had called for  

the records of the writ petition since the consideration of the  

request made by the appellant for grant of interim order is in  

the main matter itself.  

5. After  hearing the  learned counsel  for the  parties, the  

High Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal.  Aggrieved by the  

same, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

6. It  is  not  in  dispute  nor  it  can  be  disputed  that  the  

license/permission was granted to the appellant for collection  

of  the  parking  fee  by  the  Assistant  Revenue  Officer.  Under  

Section 348 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976  

(for  brevity  'the  Act'),  it  is  the  Standing  Committee  alone  

which  can  grant  such  license/permission.  Keeping  aforesaid  

provisions of the Act in view, the Division Bench of the High  

Court has sustained the order passed by the respondents dated  

02.01.2009.

7. Shri  P.  Vishwanatha  Shetty,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellant  would  submit  that  since  the  

respondent had made only temporary arrangements while granting  

license/permission  to  the  appellant  for  collection  of  the  

parking  fee,  they  were  not  justified  in  cancelling  the  said  

license/permission.  An enquiry was made by us as to whether the

Page 3

Act provides for granting of the said license/permission for  

collection of the parking fee by the Assistant Revenue Officer,  

the learned senior counsel was unable to point out any such  

provision in the Act.

8. The learned senior counsel fairly admits that it is not  

the Assistant Revenue Officer but only the Standing Committee  

who could have granted the license/permission for collection of  

the parking fee.  

9. After having carefully perused the provisions of Section  

348 of the Act as well as the impugned judgment and order passed  

by the High Court we are of the considered opinion that the High  

Court has not committed any error whatsoever which would call  

for our interference.  The appeal, therefore stands dismissed.  

Ordered accordingly.

...........................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 27, 2013