<p>The high court has quashed the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/bda" target="_blank">BDA’s</a> letter asking <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/suchitra-film-society" target="_blank">Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy</a>, Bengaluru, to return the Rs 50 lakh concession given while renewing the lease for the sites.</p>.<p>Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that a single English word ‘donation’ in the lease transaction has played havoc in the matter, making it prejudicial against the petitioner — Suchitra Trust.</p>.<p>The petitioner was granted a 30-year lease in March 1979 and, while renewing the lease in June 2010, it was given Rs 50 lakh concession on the instructions of the then chief minister. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) raised certain audit objections based on the word used in the lease transaction. Following the objection, the BDA wrote to the trust on November 19, 2014 to return the Rs 50 lakh.</p>.<p>The court declared that it was not possible to consider the concession granted by the BDA as a “donation” in the context of the case. The court stated that the BDA had not provided anything to the petitioner as a donation and pointed out that even the chief minister’s letter did not use the word “donation”.</p>.<p>“The wrong employment of this one single word of the English language has played havoc in the matter to a great prejudice of the petitioner — Suchitra Trust. It was Bertrand Russell who, decades ago, had said that if language is not properly used, what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what needs to be done would remain undone or misdone,” Justice Krishna Dixit said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “The BDA could have offered a proper explanation to the auditing party (CAG) as to what it meant by the word ‘donation’ in the light of the transaction in question. However, it did not choose to do that. The auditing party did not solicit explanation from the petitioner, either. Therefore, the contention of the BDA panel counsel that his client being a statutory authority cannot give any donation to anyone since it has to act as the trustee of the public funds does not impress the court, even in the least,” the court said.</p>
<p>The high court has quashed the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/bda" target="_blank">BDA’s</a> letter asking <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tag/suchitra-film-society" target="_blank">Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy</a>, Bengaluru, to return the Rs 50 lakh concession given while renewing the lease for the sites.</p>.<p>Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that a single English word ‘donation’ in the lease transaction has played havoc in the matter, making it prejudicial against the petitioner — Suchitra Trust.</p>.<p>The petitioner was granted a 30-year lease in March 1979 and, while renewing the lease in June 2010, it was given Rs 50 lakh concession on the instructions of the then chief minister. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) raised certain audit objections based on the word used in the lease transaction. Following the objection, the BDA wrote to the trust on November 19, 2014 to return the Rs 50 lakh.</p>.<p>The court declared that it was not possible to consider the concession granted by the BDA as a “donation” in the context of the case. The court stated that the BDA had not provided anything to the petitioner as a donation and pointed out that even the chief minister’s letter did not use the word “donation”.</p>.<p>“The wrong employment of this one single word of the English language has played havoc in the matter to a great prejudice of the petitioner — Suchitra Trust. It was Bertrand Russell who, decades ago, had said that if language is not properly used, what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what needs to be done would remain undone or misdone,” Justice Krishna Dixit said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “The BDA could have offered a proper explanation to the auditing party (CAG) as to what it meant by the word ‘donation’ in the light of the transaction in question. However, it did not choose to do that. The auditing party did not solicit explanation from the petitioner, either. Therefore, the contention of the BDA panel counsel that his client being a statutory authority cannot give any donation to anyone since it has to act as the trustee of the public funds does not impress the court, even in the least,” the court said.</p>