M/S KRISHNAIAH PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/6513/2024 · 2025-04-21
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18112 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18112 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16348 WP No. 6513 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. 6513 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
M/S KRISHNAIAH PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD., A COMAPANY INCORPORATE UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 23, SANKEY SQUARE, SANKEY ROAD, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADASIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. CHALLAMMALLA TARAKA RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009.
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16348 WP No. 6513 of 2024
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTE BEARING NIL NO.
DATED 02/02/2024 ISSUED BY R3, TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A) AS WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW BEING CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 122 AND 129 OF THE BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE ACT, 1964 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 Ranjan Kumar,
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 No.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
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16348 WP No. 6513 of 2024
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
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16348 WP No. 6513 of 2024
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, 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.: 466