Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bondu Ramaswamy M vs Bengaluru Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 17 September, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:38439
                                                       WP No. 50538 of 2019




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 50538 OF 2019 (GM-BWSSB)
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   SRI BONDU RAMASWAMY M
                      AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
                      S/O. LATE BONDU MUSALAIAH,
                      R/AT NO. 306, 9TH D MAIN,
                      HRBR LAYOUT,
                      KALYAN NAGAR,
                      BANGALORE-560 043.

                 2.   SMT. B. R. RANGAMMA
                      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                      W/O. SRI. BONDU RAMASWAMY. M,
                      R/AT NO. 306, 9TH D MAIN,
                      HRBR LAYOUT,
                      KALYAN NAGAR,
                      BANGALORE-560 043.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
                 3.   SRI. BONDU BHAGATH SINGH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KARNATAKA             S/O. SRI. BONDU RAMASWAMY. M,
                      R/AT NO. 306, 9TH D MAIN,
                      HRBR LAYOUT,
                      KALYAN NAGAR,
                      BANGALORE-560 043.

                 4.   SRI. B. R. ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU
                      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
                      S/O. SRI. BONDU RAMASWAMY. M,
                      R/AT NO. 306, 9TH D MAIN,
                      HRBR LAYOUT,
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:38439
                                    WP No. 50538 of 2019




     KALYAN NAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 043.

5.   SRI. DEVRAJ. M.
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     S/O. B. MUNIYAPPA,
     R/AT NO.549, MARUTHI NILAYA,
     THANISANDRA, RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
     DR. SIVRAM KARANTH NAGAR POST,
     BANGALORE-560 077.

     REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
     M/S. SAI KALYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT.
     LTD.,
     A REGISTERED COMPANY
     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,
     NO.3 ABOVE HERITAGE FOODS,
     OPP. COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT PARK MAIN GATE,
     KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL,
     BANGALORE-560 024,

     REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
     SRI. RAVIPATI SUNIL KUMAR.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
     II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
     K.G. ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 009,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2.   THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M)
     BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD,
     II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
     K.G. ROAD,
                               -3-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:38439
                                         WP No. 50538 of 2019




     BANGALORE-560 009.

3.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BANGALORE-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R3
 SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 6.7.2019 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY
THE R-2 AND QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 24.08.2017 AT
ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                        ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner/s, Sri. Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional SPP for respondent No.3 and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The charges levied against the petitioner/s, in the case at hand, are either few or all of these charges viz., Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges, Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges, Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for -4- NC: 2024:KHC:38439 WP No. 50538 of 2019 Construction. These very charges were considered by this Court in W.P.No.20016 of 2021 c/w W.P.No.10020 of 2020, disposed on 05-04-2024, wherein this Court has upheld the Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction and has quashed Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges, by the following order:

"35. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.

            (ii)    The demand of Advance Probable Pro
                    Rata  Charges    and   Treated     Water
Charges for Construction are upheld.
(iii) The demand of Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are held to be illegal.
(iv) The obliteration as found in clause (iii) supra will not come in the way of the State or the Board to bring in the charges that are held to be illegal under the provisions of the Act or the Rules, by making suitable amendments to the Act, Rules or the Regulations.

            (iv)    Petitioners in these petitions who have
                    deposited       amounts    demanded    as
Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are entitled to refund of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:38439 WP No. 50538 of 2019 the same, for which purpose the petitioners shall submit a representation. The same shall merit consideration within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(v) In cases where in the event the petitioners have deposited the amount before this Court, as a condition precedent for grant of the interim order, the Registry shall refund those amounts to the petitioners, in case of any deposit of the kind."

3. In the light of the issues answered by this Court supra standing covered to the case at hand on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and observations.

Ordered accordingly.

As a consequence, pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 471