The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction preferably oni: in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the Memo.No. HMWSSB/MDl2O14-15, dated 30.07.2014 on the file of 1st respondent by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional n I OF 201 NO:6983 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Order on the file of Respondent No.1 bearing No. Memo.No. HMWSSB/MD/2O14-15, dated 30.07.2014, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH V PRASAD BABU Counse! forthe Respondent No. 1: SRI AVEERESH KUMAR (sc FoR HMWS AND SB) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARA.YANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.5482 of 2O16 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.l in issuing memo No.HMWSSB/MD/2OL4-15, dated 3O.O7.2O14, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

2. Heard, Sri Ch.V.Prasad Babu, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri A.Veeresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that members of the petitioner No.l/Association purchased flats from petitioner No.2 in the apartment complex constructed on Plot Nos.222 and 223 in Sy.No.33, Judges Colony, Phase-I, Mansoorabad, 541s6ppag€rr, R.R.District; that petitioner No.2 obtained water connection uide CAN No.618344O87 from respondent No.l on 03.01.2015 and transferred rights to petitioner No.l/Association. Hb further submitted that respondent No.l instead of charging regular bill @ Rs.L994l- per month has been charging three times of the regular tariff @ Rs.5,982 /- per month by relying upon the A.P. Building Rr:les i.e., Rule 26(el of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.O4.2O12. ln fact, the - t- ) .....-- ---\ "'/ LNA,J W.P.No.5482 of 2016 2 said c'.o has no application to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.168, dated OT.O4.2O12, was issued. by exercising powers conferred under section 585 read with 5;92 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1955; Proviso under subsection (1) read with sub section (2) of Sectio:n 14, 32, 46 and 58 of the Andhra pradesh Urban Areas (Devel,rpment) Act, 1975; Section 56 (1) of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Act, 2oog; Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal corporations Act, L994; Sectio:e 326 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and Sectio:: 44(ll of the Andhra Pradesh Town planning Act, 1920, however, there is no reference to HMWSSB Act, 1989, thus, the said ci.o.No.168 is not appticable to HMwssB and therefore, respondent No.1 cannot rely on G.O.No.168.

4. .Learned counsel for the petitioners principally contended that n:spondent No.l can exercise powers which are available under Hyderabad Metropolitan water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1989, and any regulation there under, but cannot impose penalty as provided in G.o.Ms.No.168, dated or.o4.2n 12, as the said (i.o was neither issued by respondent No.l-Board nor there i.s any reference of the Board in the said G.o and thus, pralred to allow the writ petition= LNA,J ll.P.No.5482 of 2016 3

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.l by referring to counter liled on behalf of respondent No.l submitted that HMWS & SB is part and parcel of the Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, being the parent department; that HMWS & SB and GHMC are working under its control. He further submitted that according to Section 81 of the HMWS & SB Act, 1989, in discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions on question of policy, which may be given to it by the Government, provided that such direction shall be given after consultation with the Board; that in the case of any difference of opinion as to what is a question of policy, the decision thereon of the Govemment shall be finat.

6. learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. I further submit that petitioners never challenged G.O.Ms.No.168, dated

07.O4.2O12 issued by the Government (M.A & U.D, Department) and as long as the said G.O is in force, it is binding on the writ petitioners as the said G.O is applicable to HMWS & SB as well as the GHMC and therefore, until and unless the petitioners obtain the Occupanry Certifrcate, the Board is empowered to levy three times penalty on the petitioner and the petitioner is tiable to pay the same. He frnally submitted that writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, liable to be dismissed. -l LNA,J W.P.No.5482 of 2016 4

7. [n the light of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration of this court is whether respondent No.l has authority to impose three times of the tariff on the petitioners.

8. ,.t is not in dispute that petitioners' Association has not obtained occupancy certificate and imposition of three times tariff by respondent No.l on petitioner No.1 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.O4.2012. The only contention raised by pehtioners is that in the absence of any power under HMWS & SB .,\ct, 1989, respondent No.l could not impose three times tariff ty referring to G.O.Ms.No.168, dated OT.O4.2012. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.l would submit that respondent No.1 is bound to follow directions issued by the Government as per Section 81 of the HMWS & SB Act, 19t89.

9. It is appropriate to refer to rule 26(el of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.O4.2012, which reads as under: "R\ile-26(g): The functional/lhe agencies dealing with ehzctric power, water supplg, drainage and sewerclge sh:all not giue regular onnections to t?e building unless such Oeupancy Certiftcate is produced, or alternatiuelg may charge 3 times the tariff tilt such time OcanpancA Ce:rtificate is produed. This andilion shail al.so be atr:'plicable to alt unauthoriz.ed anstructions and. btt.ildings constructed. uithout sanctioned. buitding plan. In addition to tle aboue, tle Lacal Bodg stnll collect LNA,J W.P.No.5482 of 20t6 5 euery Aear two times th.e propertg tax as penaltg from tlrc owner/occupier." It is relevant to note that respondent No.l herein is the agency which deals with water supply, drainage and sewerage.

10. It is also relevant to refer to section g1 of HMWSsB Act, 1989, which reads as under:- "87. Direction bg fie Gouernment:-(1) In th.e discharge of its fancttons, tle Board. shnil be guided bg "u"n direction on question of poticg may be giuen to it bg file Cauernient; Prouided thot such direction srwil be giuen afier mnsultation with tlte Board. (2) In th.e case of any differene of opinton as to uthnt es a question of poticy the d.ecision th.ereon of firc Gouemment slwll be final." Respondent No.1 being agency, responsible for providing water supply, drainage and sewerage, the G.o.Ms.No.16g issued by Government is applicable to respondent No.1 in view of section 8l of HMwssB Act, 1989, and respondent No.l is empowered to charge three times the tariff as stipulated in G.o.Ms.No.16g. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that respondent No.l is not empowered to charge three times the tariff by virtug of G.O.Ms.No.16g, is untenable.

11. The Government has taken a pohcy decision that no electric power, water supply, drainage and sewerage connections shall be grven to building unless occupancy f { a \ \ \ LNA,J lIt.P.No.5482 of 2016 6 certificatr: is produced, alternatively three times tariff be charged till occupancy certificate is produced. Admittedly, petitione:: No. 1 association did not obtain occupancy certificate in respect of their apartment complex and therefore, respondent No.l has' charged three times of the regular tariff in terms of rule 26(9) of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012. F\rther, from the reco::d it is evident that petitioners have failed to obtain occupan(:y certil-rcate and thus, there is clear default on the part of petitic,ners and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any relief as orayed for in the writ petition.

12. In the light of above discussion, writ petition is devoid of any merit and petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought firr in the writ petition and thus, writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions p..rairrg, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// . T.SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC'io SRl. CH V PRASAD BABU Advoca PUC] VEERESH KUMAR (SC F OR MUNICIPAL ADMINIS High Court for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUTI ON AND URBAN SAN D SB) [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRl. A 3. Two CCs, to GP F DEVELOPMENT,

4. Two CD CoPies BM DR HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 I I {HE S \.) l'^ r() 06 tt8 m Jr * .* ORDER WP.No.5482 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g'CI\9