MR P NAGENDRA (BY SRI. NARENDRA H N., ADVOCATE) v. Sri B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
M/S NOVOLIFE INNOVATIVE STRUCTURES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.509/168/2 2ND FLOOR, GUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 087 REP. HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER MR P NAGENDRA (BY SRI. NARENDRA H N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001
THE CHAIRMAN BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17347 WP No. 14902 of 2022
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M) BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA FOR R1; Sri B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR BEARING NO.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/DCE(M)-I/TA(M)- III/59/2017-18 DTD APRIL 03, 2017 ISSUED BY THE R3 ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri. Narendra H.N., learned counsel for petitioner/s, Sri. Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate respondent No.1 Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Operative part
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 Construction. These very - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17347 WP No. 14902 of 2022 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) (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. amounts (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 demanded - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17347 WP No. 14902 of 2022 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 KG
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.