Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17286 (KAR)

M/S SRI SAI MOURYA ESTATES AND TECH PARK, v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6184/2024 · 2025-04-21

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16357 WP No. 6184 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. 6184 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN: M/S SRI SAI MOURYA ESTATES AND TECH PARK, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 172-6-1 NARAYANA MANSION, 4TH CROSS ROAD, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560076 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR BOBALLA CHINNOLLA JANARADHAN REDDY, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BOBBALA MOURYANATH REDDY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. ENGINEER - IN- CHIEF BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16357 WP No. 6184 of 2024 II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER RAISING A DEMAND NOTE FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R-2 THROUGH THE R-4 DTD. 05.12.2023 (ANNX-A) 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 George Joseph, 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 to 4. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16357 WP No. 6184 of 2024 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. (v) In cases where in the event the petitioners has deposited the amount before this Court, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16357 WP No. 6184 of 2024 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.: 462