Karnataka High Court
Sri M Veerabhdraiah vs The Commissioner on 25 October, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.20465/2014 (GM-BWSSB)
BETWEEN:
SRI M VEERABHADRAIAH
S/O. LATE MALLAIAH,
ADVOCATE,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.141, I FLOOR, 13TH MAIN ROAD,
27TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-11.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BWSSB CAUVERY BHAVAN,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, NO.4, SUB DIVISION,
SOUTH WEST,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 011.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BWSSB, NO.4, SUB DIVISION,
SOUTH WEST, BWSSB,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.3.2014 OF THE R-3
VIDE ANN-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO COLLECT
THE CHARGES OF WATER SUPPLY IN TERMS OF THE
REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS LETTER DATED
15.2.2014 AT ANN-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 05.03.2014 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to collect the water supply charges in terms of the letter dated 15.02.2014.
2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant under one Smt.Nagalakshmi in the premises bearing No.141, I floor, 13th Main 37th Cross, Jayanagar 3rd Block, East Bengaluru. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession contends that he has established his office in the said premises and in that light there is minimum usage of water, only for the Toilet facilities. In that light, it is 3 contended that the impugned bill and the demand as at present is not justified. Reference is made to the water consumption charges for which bill has been issued by the respondents from the year 2012 onwards to point out that it has always been around Rs.472/- per month but for January 2014 the abnormally high bill of Rs.34,629/- was issued. In that light, it is contended that the petitioner had raised the said issue with the respondents through the communication dated 15.02.2014. Despite the same, the respondents have issued the communication dated 05.03.2014 impugned at Annexure-D asserting the position and calling for payment of the amount. It is in that light the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The respondents at the outset have contended that against the demand which is presently made, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can avail the alternate remedy 4 of appeal under Section 120 of BWSSB Act and as such the petitioner cannot maintain the instant petition. The respondents seek to justify the action based on the impugned communication that has been issued and in that light have contended that the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the petition papers.
5. It is no doubt true that under the provision contained in Section 120 of the BWSSB Act, appeal remedy is available to the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the instant petition was pending before this Court and a limited consideration with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the communication as at Annexure-D is required to be made at this point in time, such consideration is necessary to be made herein. 5
6. In that regard, a perusal of the petition papers would disclose that as per the details furnished and the bills relied on by the petitioner at Annexure-A series as also the details stipulated in para-3 of the petition indicating the consumption and the charges therein from September 2012 onwards, it is seen that in most of the months it has been Rs.472/- per month. Insofar as the justification as put forth by the respondents to indicate the consumption charges and the amount of Rs.34,629/- for January 2014, in the impugned communication it is stated with regard to the report relating to the ball valve being defective and there having been wastage of water. Hence, the consumption charges in any event is payable is the contention.
7. Even if that be the position, that aspect of the matter is required to be put to the petitioner and on providing an opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh decision is to be taken. I am of the said opinion for the 6 reason that from the details furnished relating to the earlier consumption charges and the bills issued from September 2012 up to June 2013 it has almost been in the same pattern at Rs.472/-. For the months of July 2013 and August 2013, it has been more than Rs.7,000/- in each case. Thereafter again from September 2013 it has been at the rate of Rs.472/- until December 2013. For the month January 2014 the amount of Rs.34,629/- is demanded which is impugned in this petition. These aspects of the matter are also to be kept in view to come to the conclusion as to whether the ball valve being defective is the only reason for which the higher bill has been issued and if any other aspect which requires consideration.
8. Therefore, only to enable the said exercise, the communication dated 05.03.2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, provide opportunity by putting put forth all 7 materials based on which the demand has been made and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, if the petitioner has any further grievance, it is for the petitioner to have it redressed in an appeal to be filed under Section 120 of BWSSB Act. The sum of Rs.10,000/- said to have been deposited pursuant to the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 shall also be considered by the respondents while taking decision in the matter.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms