- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.3709 OF 2021 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN: FIBERS & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.20-A/21-E, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. LAXMI NARAYAN GAUR, S/O NEMI CHAND SHARMA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N. ARALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (W) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NW-2), BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06TH JANUARY, 2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, REFUSING TO REFUND EXCESS 3MMD DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.30,80,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING WATER CONNECTION VIDE ANNEXURE-O; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REPAY THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.30,80,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING 3MMD WATER CONNECTION; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company is challenging the order dated 06th January, 2021 (Annexure-O) passed by the respondent No.3, declining to refund the excess three Months Minimum Demand (for short, hereinafter referred to as '3MMD') amount to the petitioner. 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner-Company is having business of garment manufacturing and exports. The petitioner-Company had obtained the connection for water supply from the respondent-Board and paid the proportionate charges of Rs.36,10,475/- (Annexure-A) as a security deposit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 It is stated in the writ petition that the consumption of the water by the petitioner-Company was increased from 9000 KL to 24,000 KL per month and as such, the respondent-Board issued Revised Demand Note dated 09th March, 2006 (Annexure-B) and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.36,75,000/. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company made payment in three installments. It is further stated in the writ petition that the water consumption of the petitioner-Company reduced on account of adopting advanced machines and wash recipes and therefore, the petitioner-Company approached the respondent- Board, seeking refund of aggregate deposit made and same was rejected by the respondent-Board by letter dated 06th January, 2021 (Annexure-O). Hence, the petitioner-Company preferred the present petition. 3. Heard Sri. Shivaraj N. Arali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 4. Sri. Shivaraj N. Arali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-B to the writ petition, wherein revised demand note of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 Rs.36,75,000/- was claimed by the respondent-Board and contended that the water consumption by the petitioner- Company has been reduced drastically and as such, the average water charges as per Annexure-K for the last three months was Rs.52,735/- as against the 3MMD of Rs.32,40,000/-. Accordingly, he sought interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to Regulation 7-A of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulations, 1965 B (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations-1965') and argued that, in view of the reduction of water consumption, it is the duty of the respondent-Board to conform to Regulation 7-A. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the constitutional validity of Regulation 7-A of the Regulations-1965 has been upheld by this Court, and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in respect of any statutory deposit that may be made by the consumer. In this regard, he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. NARAYAN IYER vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1976 SC 1986 and the judgment of this Court in the case of B.W.S.S.B vs. RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL reported in ILR 1986 KAR 488 and submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 7. By referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. vs. A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in 1993 Supp(4) SCC 136, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board that the deposit made by the consumer and the service rendered by the respondent board has to be accepted as there is no arbitrary in claiming revised demand based on the consumption of the water and same cannot be refunded to the petitioner on account of reduction of consumption of water. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the present writ petition. 8. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent-Board raised additional demand of Rs.36,75,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 as per Revised Demand Note dated 09th March, 2006 (Annexure-B). It is the case of the petitioner that, there is a reduction of water consumption and therefore, sought for proportionate refund in the light of Regulation 7-A of the Regulations-1965. The Regulation 7-A of Regulations-1965 reads as under: "[7-A. Every water connection shall stand covered by a minimum deposit as follows: The 3 Months Minimum Demand (3 MMD) charges at the time of sanctioning of connection upto 50 mm dia are as follows: Sl. No. Size 3 MMD for non- domestic connections 3 MMD for domestic connection 1. 15 mm dia Rs.1,300/- (Considered for 10,000 liters) Rs.315/- (Considered for 15,000 liters) 2. 20 mm dia Rs.5,900/- for 40,000 liters Rs.1,800/- For 40,000 liters 3. 25 mm dia Rs.11,600/- for 70,000 liters Rs.4,300/- for 70,000 liters 4. 40 mm dia Rs.28,600/- for 1,50,000 liters Rs.14,500/- for 1,50,000 liters 4. 50 mm dia Rs.61,000/- for 3,00,000 liters Rs.35,300/- For 3,00,000 liters Note.- The 3 MMD Charges shall be revised: (i) whenever there is a revision of water tariff; (ii) when - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 the six months average monthly consumption exceeds the minimum consumption indicated above.] (emphasis supplied) 9. Perusal of the note appended to the Regulation 7-A provides for revision of three Months Minimum Demand (3MMD) charges in the case of revision of water tariff as well as the consumption of water for a period of six months exceeds the minimum consumption. 10. In the light of the above provision, the regulation itself provides for revision of 3MMD charges on account of the minimum consumption for a period of six months average. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondent-Board to consider the case of consumers particularly the petitioner in terms of representation dated 22nd December 2020 (Annexure-L). Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board vehemently contended about the maintainability of the writ petition as well as the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the fixation of the statutory deposit, however, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board shall be considered in the light of Regulation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39610 WP NO.3709 OF 2021 7-A of the Regulations-1965. It is also to be noted that, since the petitioner-Company is utilising minimum water supply compared to earlier consumption and therefore, such excess of water consumption is being utilised by the other consumers, in which the respondent-Board is raising bills from them. The intent of the Regulation 7-A is to facilitate such consumers to reduce the consumption of water to enable the other such consumers to utilise the same for livelihood. Therefore, being an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the respondent-Board is bound to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the provision contained under Regulation 7-A of the Regulations-1965. Accordingly, the respondent-Board is directed to reconsider the claim made by the petitioner in the light of observation made above and take decision in the matter within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53