M/S CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/6421/2024 · 2025-04-21
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17903 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17903 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16355 WP No. 6421 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. 6421 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
M/S CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.40/1, CONCORDE, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE - 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI GANGADHAR S S/O SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMMITH. S.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.
2.
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16355 WP No. 6421 of 2024
4.
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BUILDING, DISTRICT OFFICES ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GO NO. UDD 154 MNI 2004 DTD 28.02.2005 ISSUED BY R-1 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-B.
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 Sammith S., 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
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16355 WP No. 6421 of 2024
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 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:16355 WP No. 6421 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.: 463