Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28693 (KAR)

MR LIAQUATHULLA KHAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/18265/2024 · 2025-04-21

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16387 WP No. 18265 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. 18265 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN: 1. MR LIAQUATHULLA KHAN, S/O MR. RAHIMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. MR SHOWKATHULA KHAN, S/O MR RAHIMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. MR SHUJAYATHULLA KHAN, S/O MR RAHIMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 5-4-16, 2ND LANE, 3RD CROSS ROAD BRODIPET, GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 522002 4. MR MARUTHI P, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O MR PULAKESHI H A, NO.31/12 POORANJANEYA SWAMY LAYOUT, BEHIND JAIN HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, HENNUR CROSS ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560043, 5. MR BHIMAPPA HANDIGUND, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O MR BALAPPA LAXMAN HANDIGUNF, RESIDING AT HANDIGUND TOTA, MUDALGI RURAL BELGAUM - 591312, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16387 WP No. 18265 of 2024 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/S BHARATIYA URBAN PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY, M/S BHARATIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD) A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE (VIA VANDALUR) CHENNAI - 600 048, HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.100/1, ANCHORAGE - 1, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE - 560064. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. DINKAR HERIKUDRU, VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMMITH. S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16387 WP No. 18265 of 2024 CAUVERY BUILDING, DISTRICT OFFICES ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING THE GO NO. UDD 145 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 petitioners, 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16387 WP No. 18265 of 2024 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16387 WP No. 18265 of 2024 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 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.: 492