^ / •V APHC010024762017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21328 OF 2017 Between: M/s Smaat India Private limited, Formerly Know as Smaat Aqua Technologies Pvt.Ltd., represented by its chairman & Managing Director karunakara M Reddy, Ho.No.3-9-554/9A, Ragala Enclave, mansoorabad, Near Sahara Estates, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District, Hyderabad-500068. Ph no : 98494 33311, e- mail: cmd@smaatindia.com ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Municipal Corporation Kurnool, Represented by It's Commissioner, Kurnool District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the act of respondent no.2 as arbitrary, unjust, violation of article 14, 21 of the constitution and against the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent no.2 to restore raw water supply to the petitioner’s water treatment plants at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony. Pump House, and 0^ Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality as per the agreement dt. 9‘^ of March 2010 and dt. 16-02-2010 respectively. Further direct the respondent no.2 to pay the losses incurred by the petitioner company i.e Rs.25 lakhs at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony, Pump Hours and Rs.12 lakhs at Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality. lA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 26231 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to restore raw water supply to the petitioner's water treatment plants at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony ,Pump House, and Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality as per the agreement dt; 9*'" of March 2010 and dt. 16-02-2010 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SOURI BABU DUPPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following order: APHC010024762017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21328/2017 Between: 1.M/S SMAAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,, FORMERLY KNOW AS SMAAT AQUA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KARUNAKARA M REDDY, H0.N0.3-9-554/9A, RAGALA ENCLAVE, MANSOORABAD, NEAR SAHARA ESTATES, L.B.NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT, HYDERABAD- 500068. PH NO : 98494 33311, E-MAIL ; CMD©SMAATINDIA.COM ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KURNOOL, REPRESENTED BY IT'S COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the act of respondent no.2 as arbitrary, unjust , violation of article 14, 21 of the constitution and against the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent no.2 to restore raw water supply to the petitioner 39 s water treatment plants at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony ,Pump House, and Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality as per the 2 agreement dt 9th of March 2010 and dt. 16-02-2010 respectively. 16-02-2010 respectively. Further direct the respondent no.2 to pay the losses incurred by the petitioner company i.e Rs.25 lakhs at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony ,Pump Hous and Rs.12 lakhs at Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 26231 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to restore raw water supply to the petitioner's water treatment plants at Seetharam Nagar, Venkartamana colony ,Pump House, and Stantanpuram water treatment plant in Kurnool Municipality as per the agreement dt: 9th of March 2010 and dt. 16-02-2010 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SOURI BABU DUPPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SC FOR MC RAYALSEEMA 2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking compensation to a tune of Rs.25,00,000/- for Seetharam Nagar, Venkataramana Colony, Pump House and Rs. 12,00,000/- for Stantapuram Water Treatment Plant in Kurnool Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2"^ respondent for supply of drinking water which was treated in the water plant set up by the petitioner. It is submitted that the 2"*^ respondent could not supplied the raw water, which resulted in losses to the petitioner, as the petitioner could not supplied the treated water as per the agreement and at the same time had incurred losses on account of maintenance of water treatment plant apart from the operational expenses. In this regard, the present Writ Petition is filed. The 2"*^ respondent, in their counter affidavit, has submitted that 2. the petitioner inspite of treating the water supplied by the Corporation has resorted to pumping drinking water from the water treatment plant set up by the Corporation and the pipe connections of the plant of the petitioner were set up in such manner which would enable the petitioner to draw the treated water, which in-turn supplied by the petitioner without utilization of the treatment plant set up by the petitioner. It is also submitted in the counter that there is no document submitted by the petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is incurred an amount of Rs. 17,280/- per day and in absence of any documentary evidence, the claim of the petitioner would have to be rejected. On these grounds, the Writ Petition is sought to be dismissed. 4 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a suit for damages against the Corporation and also submits that the petitioner has all the required material to substantiate his claim. 4. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view, that the Writ Petition be disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY Rj^GISTRAR 6. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. One CC to Sri Souri Babu Duppati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipality (OPUC) 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Cnr (gsg) HIGH COURT i DATED:22/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21328 OF 2017 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS