SRI SANJEEV RENIWAL v. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M NAGAPRASANNA
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:17122
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUBRAMANYPURA, BENGALURU – 560 061.
B.Y.PADMAVATHI AGED 51 YEARS, D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY.
B.Y.PREMALATHA AGED 49 YEARS, D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY. NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.Y.BHARATHI AGED 41 YEARS, D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY.
B.Y.SRINATH AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY. PETITIONERS NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF BALAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17122 WP No. 19242 of 2021 REPRESENTD BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/S. GOYAL HARIYANA DEVELOPER A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.206, BARTON CENTRE, NO.84, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SANJEEV RENIWAL. …PETITIONERS (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. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17122 WP No. 19242 of 2021 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTICE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. NIL DATED NIL GENERATED ON 04.10.2021 AT ANNX-E ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri T. P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for petitioner/s, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4 and Sri K. B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 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 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17122 WP No. 19242 of 2021 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 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17122 WP No. 19242 of 2021 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. BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 Sd/- JUDGE
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.