High Court of Karnataka directed Tumakuru City Corporation to decide a pending plea on excess property tax adjustment, ruling that writ proceedings alone cannot justify administrative inaction. Justice Suraj Govindaraj stressed that authorities must perform statutory duties unless restrained by a valid judicial stay order.
KARNATAKA: The High Court of Karnataka has ordered the Tumakuru City Corporation to address an application regarding the adjustment of excess property tax. The court remarked that the mere existence of a pending writ petition should not be a reason to withhold consideration of prior representations or applications.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated,
“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.”
He also instructed the state government to issue appropriate guidelines to all subordinate offices regarding this matter.
The petitioner, B.G. Srinivasa Rao, a Tumakuru resident, submitted a representation to the city corporation in 2017, seeking to adjust the excess property tax he had paid in previous years. When no response was received, he filed a writ petition in 2018.
During the proceedings, the Tumakuru City Corporation claimed it could not make a decision on the representation due to the pending petition in the high court. The court dismissed this argument as untenable.
Justice Govindaraj stated,
“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,”
He emphasized that administrative authorities cannot use the pendency of judicial proceedings as an excuse for inaction, especially when the grievance stems from their failure to consider representations.
Further highlighting the issue, the court remarked,
“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 instructed the Corporation to evaluate the representation submitted by the petitioner in August 2017 within 60 days.
The court added,
“It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the representation,”