M/S Khalsa Beverages (India) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:60697

¶3

NAFR

¶4

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶5

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.12.17 11:31:14 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 3955 of 2025

¶8

M/s Khalsa Beverages (India) Address- 104 And 105, Sector - B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Bilaspur C.G., Through The Proprietor, Jagpal Singh Khanuja, S/o Sardar Charanjeet Singh Khanuja, Aged About 35 Years, Address- 104 And 105, Sector - B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Bilaspur C.G.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Kharan Division, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur C.G.

¶13

The Sub - Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur C.G.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General.

¶16

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

12.12.2025

¶19

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order to quash and set aside the demand letter dated 08/04/2025 (Annexure P-8) issued by

¶21

2

¶22

respondent No.3 and the water charges imposed therein.

¶23

10.2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.”

¶24

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is engaged in the business of packaged drinking water supply and ground water is extracted and used by petitioner as raw material for his product. He submits that initially abstraction of groundwater was not chargeable, however, vide Notification dated 16.1.2020 it was made chargeable for the industries engaged in beverages and packaged drinking water at the rate or Rs.375/- per cubic meter with prospective effect. Respondent No.3 issued impugned demand notice to the petitioner for payment of groundwater abstraction charges to the tune of Rs.226.55 Lakh for the period from 10.5.2010 to 31.3.2025 on the ground that abstraction of ground water is being done by petitioner without prior permission or agreement, which is illegal. As per impugned demand letter, this calculation includes penalty equal to three times the amount of water charges. He contended that impugned demand notice, Annexure P-8, dated 8.4.2025 is without any basis. In the impugned demand letter, there is no mention as to how the amount sought to be recovered has been computed. RespondentState in their reply has pleaded that demand is raised at the

¶25

3

¶26

rate of 18 KLD consumption of water since 10.5.2010, whereas consumption of water in petitioner unit was less than 10 KLD, which is exempted under CGWA Notification. He also contended that respondents have not enclosed any document to show as to how it is concluded that petitioner is consuming underground water @ 18 KLD. He further submits that petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before raising impugned demand.

¶27

3. Learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that petitioner is engaged in the business of packaged drinking water and is consuming quantity of underground water as mentioned in reply. Notices were issued to petitioner, however, the same have not been responded in appropriate manner.

¶28

4. Upon asking to learned State Counsel as to submission of any document on the basis of which the consumption of water has been quantified, he submits that no such document is enclosed along with reply.

¶29

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents filed along with writ petition.

¶30

Main grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is that petitioner is consuming underground water less than 10 KLD, which is exempted under CGWA Notification and further, there is no material to suggest to come out with a

¶31

4

¶32

figure as mentioned in the reply about consumption of water.

¶33

When the Court poses question to learned State Counsel about manner in which the consumption is ascertained/computed, no satisfactory submission is made nor any document in this regard is enclosed along with reply.

¶34

8. In the above facts of case, in stead of considering the dispute/ grievance, as raised by petitioner in this writ petition with regard to total demand as raised by respondent No.3 for consumption of underground water and its rate, without entering into merits of the claim of petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, directing respondent authorities to pass order afresh for demand of usage charges of underground water.

¶35

9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned demand letter dated 8.4.2025, Annexure P-8, is set aside. Respondent authorities is directed to re-compute the quantity of underground water consumed by petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶36

Certified copy as per rules.

¶37

roshan/-

¶38

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

M/S Khalsa Beverages (India) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Khalsa Beverages (India) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doman Lal Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joidha Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Verma and Ors.

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Harshveer Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh Samaj Sanrakshan Evam Vikas Samiti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemlal Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kanchan Ahuja Vs State of Chhattisgarh