- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16351 WP No. 6466 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. 6466 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN: M/S GARUDA ROYAL HOMES (PARTNERSHIP FIRM), REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K SRINIVASULU, NO.45, BATTARAHALLI VILLAGE OLD MADRAS ROAD, K R PURAM BANGALORE-560036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD(BWSSB), REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, I-FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,BENGALURU-560009. 3. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER(EAST), VII 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:16351 WP No. 6466 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AND QUASH THE DEMAND NOTE DTD 07.02.2024 (ANNEXURE- A) FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REMITTANCE OF THE DEMAND OF RS. 61,31,602/- WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS NOC FEES, ADVANCE PROBABLE PRORATA CHARGES, GBWASP/BCC CHARGES AND TREATED WATER CHARGES FOR CONSTRUCTION IN PURSUANCE TO THE ONLINE APPLICATION BEARING NO. BWSSB-NOC-2023-12/4879- 122705565513 DTD 27.12.2023 (ANNEXURE-C) WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING AT SY NO. 45, BATTARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE 560049, UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP. 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 Girish B.R., 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16351 WP No. 6466 of 2024 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 05-04-2024, 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16351 WP No. 6466 of 2024 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, 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.: 465