M/S URBANRISE CONDOMINIUMS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/4905/2024 · 2025-04-21
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16542 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16542 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16363 WP No. 4905 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4905 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
M/S URBANRISE CONDOMINIUMS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.243, 19TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR 4, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR PARASHURAM MADIWAL …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY.
2.
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD IST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER(EAST), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD IST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16363 WP No. 4905 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNDATED IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE AGAINST APPLICATION NO. BWSSB-NOC-2023-12-6147-122202445047 DTD 22.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A) AS REGARDS THE DEMANDS MADE AT SL. NO.
2 (ADVANCE PROBABLE PRORATA CHARGES), SL. NO. 3 (BCC CHARGES), AND SL. NO. 4 (TREATED WATER CHARGES FOR CONSTRUCTION) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Joseph Antony, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
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
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16363 WP No. 4905 of 2024
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) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) 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. (iv) Petitioners in these petitions who have deposited
amounts demanded as Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges is 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: 2025:KHC:16363 WP No. 4905 of 2024
(v) In cases where in the event the petitioners has 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/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 456