M/S. G.K. DEVELOPERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT v. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M NAGAPRASANNA
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:17216
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
REPTD. BY ITS PARTNER, MR. JAGAN MOHAN (BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE) AND:
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17216 WP No. 8107 of 2023 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTE FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE IN APPLICATION NO. BWSSB-NOC-2023-3-30.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri. Raju S., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
Operative part
2. The charges levied against the petitioner, 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 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- - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17216 WP No. 8107 of 2023 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 and Treated Water Rata Charges 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. 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. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17216 WP No. 8107 of 2023 (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. I.A.No.1 of 2023 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- JUDGE SJK
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.
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.