M/S VEDANTAA BUILDER v. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
WP/16426/2025 · 2025-06-10
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28326 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28326 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19813 WP No. 16426 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16426 OF 2025 (GM-BWSSB)
BETWEEN:
M/S VEDANTAA BUILDER REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE NO. 10, 4TH CROSS, SUBBAYYANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
1.
SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O VEMULA ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2.
SRI. SRINIVASA RAO, S/O MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3.
SRI. K. ANIL KUMAR, S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19813 WP No. 16426 of 2025
AND:
1.
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EAST) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTE FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE BWSSB-NOC-NO. BWSSB-NOC-2025-4-3703-042904051128 DEMAND NOTE DATED 13/05/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.,
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19813 WP No. 16426 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Shri V. Mahesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri B.l. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3.
2. The charges levied against the petitioners, 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 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
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19813 WP No. 16426 of 2025
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 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.”
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19813 WP No. 16426 of 2025
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
JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK