Telangana High Court
Smt. Sunitha Gudniya vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 19 September, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 35462 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" .... to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare demand notice dt. 6.9.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay for Rs.3,56,064/- towards arrears of three time charges and interest thereon in respect of the CAN No. 618497326 premises bearing H.No. 3-2-403, situated at Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and the said demand notice dated 6.9.2022 is liable to be set aside, consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to charge actual consumption charges under the domestic category in respect of the CAN No. 6718497326 premises bearing H.No. 3020403, situated at Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad and pass such other and further order or orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been paying charges to the 2nd respondent and to her surprise, the respondent Board has issued the demand notice demanding an amount of Rs.3,56,064/- as per G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012. He submits that the petitioner's father-in-law purchased house property in the year 1960 and thereafter, he constructed the house by obtaining valid permission from the municipal 2 corporation. It is submitted that later, the said house property was partitioned between the brothers including the petitioner's husband and they have been paying charges as demanded by the respondents for domestic connection. It is submitted that earlier, when demand notice was issued on 25.04.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,01,967/-, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent on 19.08.2017 and made a representation requesting the respondents to revise the demand dated 25.04.2017 and issue the correct bill. It is further submitted that when the said request was not considered, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36931 of 2017 wherein an interim order was passed on 03.11.2017 not to disconnect the water supply and later, the said writ Petition was disposed of on 03.11.2020. Learned counsel submits that vide proceedings dated 07.01.2019, the Board has taken a decision to levy three times the normal bill for the consumers who have constructed their houses on or after G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 and failed to submit Occupancy Certificate. He submits that the petitioner's building was constructed in the year 1960 then the question of submitting Occupancy Certificate does not arise. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 will not apply to the case of the petitioner. In spite of that, without 3 looking at the said G.O. and about the applicability of the same to the petitioner's case, the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy submits that he will come up with a counter-affidavit.
4. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that earlier, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition before this Court. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents have issued the proceedings dated 07.01.2019 stating that except for the buildings which are constructed after 2012, they will not insist for Occupancy Certificate. Once the respondents cannot insist for Occupancy Certificate for the building which is constructed in the year 1960, then the question of applying G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 to the case of the petitioner does not arise.
5. Hence, the demand notice dated 06.09. 2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.3,56,064/- is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner shall continue to pay the regular consumption charges as per the domestic connection tariff.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
4
7. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 19th September 2022 ksld 5