Karnataka High Court
M/S Nandi Sunshine Residents vs State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1579, 2019 (4) AKR 811
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.53703 OF 2016 (GM-BWSSB) AND
WRIT PETITION NO.55632/2016
BETWEEN:
M/s. Nandi Sunshine Residents
Welfare Association
Katha no.315, Sy.No.45,46 and 46
4th Cross, Reddy Colony, Yemalur Village
Bengaluru-560 037.
Rep. by its Secretary.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrashekara Reddy M.V., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Urban Development Department
Karnataka Government Secretariat
4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha
Bengaluru-560 001.
Rep. by its Addl. Chief Secretary
2. Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB)
Cauvery Bhavan, 2nd Floor
Bengaluru-560 009
Rep. by its Chairman
3. The Engineer-in-Chief (M)
Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage board (BWSSB)
Cauvery Bhavan, 2nd Floor
Kempe Gowda Road
Bengaluru-560 009.
2
4. The Chief Engineer (M)
Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB)
Cauvery Bhavan, 2nd Floor
Kempe Gowda Road
Bengaluru-560 009.
5. The Asst. Executive Engineer (SE)-1
Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB)
Domluru Sub-division,Domluru
Bengaluru-560 008.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Y.D. Harsha, AGA for R1,
Sri M.S. Narayan, Advocate for R2 to R5)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned
demand notice dated 23.7.2016 in No.BWSSB/EIC/ACE(M)-
III/DCE(M)-/TA(M)-III/4683 as per Annexure 'M' issued by
the respondent No.3 demanding the petitioner to pay the
pro-rata charges at revised/enhanced rate of Rs.19,35,106/-
along with GBWASP/BCC charges of Rs.5,49,172/- and etc.
These petitions coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned demand notice dated 23.07.2016 in No.BWSSB/EIC/ACE(M)-III/DCE(M)- I/TA(M)-III/4683 as per Annexure - M issued by respondent No.3 demanding the petitioner to pay the pro-rata charges at revised/enhanced rate of Rs.19,35,106/- along with GBW 3 ASP/BCC charges of Rs.5,49,172/- and seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to provide water and sanitary connection to the row houses of the members of the petitioner association bearing Katha No.315, Converted Survey No.45, 46 and 46, situated at 4th Cross, Reddy Colony, Yemalur Village, Bengaluru, by collecting pro-rata charges at the old/prevailing rates at Rs.9,96,618/- along with GBW ASP/BCC charges of Rs.5,49,172/-.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered residents of welfare association duly registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and constituted by the owners of the row houses consisting of the ground floor and first floor located on the land bearing Sy. No.45, 46 and 46, Katha No.315, 4th Cross, Reddy Colony, Yemalur Village, Bengaluru way back in the year 2009. The builder/contractor, who developed and built the row houses on the land in question has made a representation on 23.07.2009 itself by remitting a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- seeking water supply and sanitary connection to the row houses of the members of the petitioner association. Despite the said payment, no action was taken and the file was not 4 at all moved in the office of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein. Due to the delay and laches on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, the petitioner has been penalized by respondent Nos.3 to 4 demanding payment pro-rata charges at revised rates as per Annexure - M that is Rs.19,35,106/- instead of Rs.9,96,618/-. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri. Chandrashekara Reddy M.V., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the sanction made by the respondents, the petitioner has paid Rs.6,40,000/- on 23.07.2009 as per Annexure - B. In the year 2016, respondents again demanded a sum of Rs.9,96,618/- towards pro-rata charges along with Rs.5,49,172/- towards GBWASP/BCC charges as per Annexure - F. Subsequently, without processing the file, for connection of water supply and sanitation, the respondents have again issued demand notice dated 15.04.2016 for payment of sum of Rs.19,35,106/- towards increase of pro- 5 rata charges from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- as per Annexure - G. The same is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further submitted that in view of the revision of pro-rata charges the petitioner made representations, as per Annexures - H and J to the respondents to accept the pro- rata charges as per the old rate. The respondents without considering the representations, issued demand notice as per Annexure - K series. Thereafter, the petitioner made one more representation on 06.06.2016 before the Authorities under the RTI Act for providing all the relevant documents pertaining to the water supply and sanitary connection. The same was not considered by the Authorities and they have issued the impugned demand notice as per Annexure - M. He further contended that because of the delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
5. Per contra, Sri. M.S. Narayan, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 sought to justify the impugned demand notice and contended that due to transition of more than 600 files from various sub divisions, which were received from the central office, the petitioner ought to have 6 pursued his case instead of awaiting for demand notice. Therefore, he sought to dismiss these writ petitions.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner developed and built the row houses on the land in question and he has paid a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- on 23.07.2009 itself, seeking water supply and sanitary connection to the row houses of the members of the petitioner association. It is also not in dispute that as per the old charges, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.9,96,618/- towards pro-rata charges along with Rs.5,49,172/- towards GBWASP/BCC charges as per Annexure - F. Very strangely the respondents have issued Annexure - G demanding Rs.19,35,106/- towards pro-rata charges and Rs.5,49,172/- towards GBW ASP/BCC charges. The petitioner made representations to the Authorities stating that it is a mistake on the part of the Authorities and that the petitioner cannot be penalized to pay the amount as demanded. Therefore, Annexures - H and J came to be filed. The Authorities as per Annexure - M have sent a revised demand notice.
7
7. It is clear from the said notice that in addition to the regular and important works, more than 600 files were received in the Central Office from various sub divisions/divisions. All the staff have worked more than 12 hours per day during this period for processing the connection files, irrespective of holidays. The applicants/plumbers, who were well aware of the revision of pro-rata charges should have followed up to get the sanction to their connection files well in advance to avoid paying additional cost towards revised pro-rata charges, but have failed in their responsibilities after submitting the file to the Central Office. While passing Annexure - M, the Authorities have not considered the deductions, i.e., the amount already paid by the petitioner of Rs.6,40,000/- which petitioner was entitled to pay pro-rata charges along with GBWASP charges as per Annexure - F under old rate. If there is any delay on the part of respondents No.2 to 5, the petitioner ought not to have penalized and before issuing Annexure - M the Authorities ought to have considered the representation made by the petitioner taken into consideration the amount already paid, but the same has not been done. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned demand notice as per 8 Annexure - M dated 23.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3 is not sustainable and the matter requires to be reconsidered by respondent No.3 after taking in to consideration, amount already paid and the sanction made in favour of the petitioner.
8. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned demand notice No.BWSSB/EIC/ CE(M)/ACE(M)-III/DCE(M)-I/TA(M)-III/4683/2016-17 dated 23.07.2016 vide Annexure - M issued by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month.
9. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of. The respondents are directed to reconsider the demand notice in terms of sanction order issued by the respondents and receive the pro-rata charges as per the old rates after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner. The respondents - Authorities cannot discriminate between the parties because of the delay on the part of the respondents- Authorities.
9
It is also made clear that the petitioner has to pay the charges towards Rain Water Harvesting.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS