KARNATAKA v. SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-3)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
SRI SULAIMAN SHAREEFF AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHERIFF R/AT NO.1, 5TH B CROSS HUTCHINS ROAD, ST.THOMAS TOWN BENGALURU – 560 084. PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER M/S. PLATINA VENTURE A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14/1 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, K.H.M. BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032 BY ITS PARTNER SMT.TAHASEEN ARA. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:16952 WP No. 287 of 2021
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009.
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. (BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DEMAND NOTICE GENERATED ON 31.12.2020 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS DEMAND OF RS.15,61,680/- TOWARDS ADVANCE PROBABLE PRORATA AND RS.26,88,000/- CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION ARE CONCERNED AND ETC., BENEFICIARY TOWARDS THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3 and Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:16952 WP No. 287 of 2021
Operative part
2. The charges levied against the petitioner in the case at hand are, Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges, Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges, Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction. These very charges were considered by this Court 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) (ii) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part. 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. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:16952 WP No. 287 of 2021 amounts demanded (iv) Petitioners in these petitions who have deposited Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are entitled to refund of 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. Sd/- JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 05 Apr 2024. The bench was M NAGAPRASANNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.