Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20258 (KAR)

M/S. SNN ESTATE LLP v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8468/2025 · 2025-04-01

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13701 WP No. 8468 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2025 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN: M/S. SNN ESTATE LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.35/B, 3RD FLOOR POTENTIAL HOUSE, 1ST MAIN ROAD 3RD PHASE, J.P NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI NITIN AGARWAL S/O SRI RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDHAKAR G. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13701 WP No. 8468 of 2025 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 04/03/2025, BEARING NO. BWSSB- NOC-2025-2-3703-022111332075, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-D) FOR DEMANDING THE GREATER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE PROJECT/BENEFICIARY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION (GBWASP/BCC) CHARGES IS CONCERNED AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE OF 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Sudhakar G.V., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The charges levied by the respondents upon the petitioner in the case at hand are few or all of these, Greater Bangalore Water and Sanitation Project / Beneficiary Capital - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13701 WP No. 8468 of 2025 contribution charges, Advance Probable Prorata charges and Treated Water Charges for construction, to the Board if it has to issue a NOC. These very charges are stood decided by this Court in W.P.No.20016/2021 and connected matter, disposed on 05.04.2024. This Court has held as follows: “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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13701 WP No. 8468 of 2025 project charges are 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 have 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.” Therefore, the issues as answered by this Court supra and in the light of the issues standing covered on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and the observations. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115 CT:SS