Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mehmood Ayaz vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.54578 OF 2016 (GM-BWSSB)
BETWEEN:
MR.MEHMOOD AYAZ,
S/O LATE MAZHAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.24/48,
M.M.ROAD,
NANDI DURGA ROAD,
JAYAMAHAL,
BANGALORE - 560 046. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M),
BWSSB, IIND FLOOR,
CAVERY BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
B.W.S.S.B.,
NORTH EAST SUB DIVISION,
18TH CROSS,
2
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 055. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI ARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR REVISED PRORATA CHARGES
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE - E DATED
27.05.2016 BEARING NO.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/ACE(M)-I/DCE(M)-
II/TA(M)-I/2034/2016-17.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Chandrashekhar Patil., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Arjun., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.M.S.Narayan., for respondents 2 & 3 have appeared in person.
Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., with the consent on behalf of the respective parties, it is heard finally.
3
The brief facts are these:
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing No.24/48, M.M. Road, Nandidurga Road, Jayamahal, Bangalore. The petitioner is running an automobile service station on this property for more than a decade for NISSAN manufactured vehicles. He applied for regularization of water and sewerage connection to his property and applied on 07.01.2016. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB - the third respondent inspected the property and submitted a report recommending for regularization of the connection assessing the prorata cost along with other charges at Rs.9,79,402/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Two only).
The Chief Engineer, BWSSB, Bengaluru, issued a letter bearing No.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/ACE(M)-I/DCE(M)-II/ TA(M)-I/14199/2015-16 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,86,827/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) towards 4 prorata and other charges within 30 days failing which the revised prorata charges would be levied at Revised Rates. It is stated that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.9,86,927/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven only) on 29.03.2016 through a demand draft bearing No 016493 drawn on J & K Bank, Indira Nagar Branch Bangalore, which has been duly acknowledged by the office of the Assistant Engineer through its seal and signature.
As things stood thus, the Chief Engineer issued a revised demand notice on 27.05.2016 calling upon the petitioner to pay additional revised prorata and other charges amounting to Rs.8,42,481/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty One only) stating that the petitioner ought to have paid the prorata and other charges of Rs.9,86,927/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven only) as claimed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner replied clarifying that he had paid the required 5 pro rata and other charges within the stipulated period of thirty days as he was required to be paid under the demand notice. It is said that the Chief Engineer - the second respondent communicated to the petitioner by a Letter dated:12.07.2016 stating that the final notification for Revised prorata and other charges was published on 26.02.2016, after which, sufficient time was given up to 28.03.2016 to facilitate the owners to make payment at the old rates and hence, called upon the petitioner to pay the additional revised pro rata charges of Rs.8,42,481/-
(Rupees Eight Lakh Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty one only) to sanction the water supply and sewerage connection to the premises.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy and has filed this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.
6
Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the writ papers along with Annexures with utmost care.
Learned counsel Sri.Chandrashekar., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the petitioner was required to pay prorata and other charges amounting to a sum of Rs.9,86,827/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) within thirty days from 04.03.2016. The petitioner promptly paid the prorata and other charges on 29.03.2016 which is well within the stipulated period or time of thirty days. Hence the action on the part of the Assistant Executive Engineer calling upon the petitioner to pay the revised prorata charges is highly illegal. Learned counsel drew the attention of the court to Annexure-C. I have perused Annexure-C. It is dated 04.03.2016. as per this communication the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,86,827/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Six 7 Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) towards prorata and other charges for both water supply and sanitary connection within thirty days failing which the prorata charges will be levied at Revised Rates.
A perusal of the same would also show that the petitioner was required to make payment within thirty days and the petitioner paid the amount on 29.03.2016 within the stipulated time. However, the chief Engineer, BWSSB on an erroneous assumption proceeded to issue a demand notice directing the petitioner to pay the revised pro rata charges on the ground that the petitioner has failed to deposit the prorata charges on or before 28.03.2016.
Suffice it to note that the petitioner was required to make the payment within thirty days from 04.03.2016 and not on or before 28.03.2016 as contended by the BWSSB. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited the charges well within time. Hence, the action of the Chief 8 Engineer calling upon the petitioner to pay revised prorata charges is illegal and unsustainable in law.
The result is that the Petition is allowed. The Writ of certiorari is ordered. The Demand notice bearing No.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/ACE(M)-I/DCE(M)-II/TA(M)-I/2034/ 2016-17 dated 27.05.2016 issued by the Chief Engineer, BWSSB, Bengaluru - second respondent vide Annexure-E is quashed.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv