ORDER : 1. The present writ petitions are filed with the following prayers: “(a) Direct the authorities of the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners as demanded in pursuance of the legal notice dated 28.02.2017 produced under Annexure-‘A’ by issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ. (b) Quash the impugned letter produced under Annexure-‘C’ issued by the first respondent on 27.09.2014 in No.UDD 239 BMR 2012 and also quash the notice dated 10.01.2017 issued by the third respondent in No.MPA/LAO/24/2009-10/921 produced under Annexure-‘B’ in so far as demand for a penalty in a sum of Rs.17,41,181/- by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ. (c) To grant such other suitable relief/s, writ/s, direction/s with costs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that, on the basis of the communication, Annexure-C dated 27.09.2014 issued by Mr. N. Gopalaiah, Under Secretary to Government, the respondent No.3-Magadi Development Authority, Ramanagar District has demanded 2% of the guidance value of the site as penalty for alleged delay in completion of civic amenities work in the Residential Layout approved and granted by the said Authority to the petitioners beyond a period of five years at the rate of 2% per year. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, there is no specific provision or notification, authorizing such levy of 2% of guidance value of the site as penalty in such cases of delay and even on facts, the delay was sufficiently explained to the respondent No.3- Authority that, on account of non-supply of electricity and Transformers by the authorities of the BESCOM in time, despite payment and formation of residential layout within five years from the date of approval of the sanctioned layout plan on 24.08.2010, such delay in developing the Civic Amenity Area occurred. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Magadi Development Authority has relied upon the provisions of Section 76-K of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) which is quoted below for reference: “76K. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Magadi Development Authority has relied upon the provisions of Section 76-K of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) which is quoted below for reference: “76K. Control by the State Government.— (1) Every Planning Authority shall carry out such directions as may be issued from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act. (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by any Planning Authority under this Act, any dispute arises between the Planning Authority, and a local authority, the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final”. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Authority further submits that, the builders (petitioners) are bound by the directions of the State Government issued for efficient administration of this Act and the said communication at Annexure-C draws its power from the said provisions of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that, the said communication is not in the form of a sub-ordinate legislation by the State Government and it is merely a communication of the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government to the Metropolitan Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, Bangalore. 7. Therefore, on the basis of the same, the respondent No.3-Authority cannot impose penalty at the rate of 2% of the guidance value under the provisions of Section 76-K of the Act. The respondent No.3 does not have any legislative competence. Unless a proper notification is issued by the State Government itself under the said provisions of Section 76-K of the Act, the Local Authorities cannot impose such penalty. Since, the very source of the impugned communication, Annexure-C is not traceable to any legislative exercise of the State Government, the impugned communication is found to be without jurisdiction. The same is liable to be quashed. 8. This Court is not going into the facts of the present case, as it is found not necessary to do so and upon issuance of proper Notification in this regard, the respondent No.3-Authority may initiate fresh action in the present case, if it deems appropriate. 9. With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned communication, Annexure-C dated 27.09.2014 is quashed. 9. With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned communication, Annexure-C dated 27.09.2014 is quashed. Consequently, the notice issued by the respondent No.3-Magadi Development Authority, Ramanagar District, Annexure-B dated 10.01.2017 addressed to the petitioners imposing penalty of 2% of the guidance value is also liable to be quashed. The same is accordingly quashed. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary and Law Secretary for information and needful action.