Disposed

Sri. Hanumanthappa v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC25 May 2023WP/1679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a demand notice for water bills accumulated since disconnection. Court directed Respondent Authority not to take precipitative action pending appeal to Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

No precipitative action to be taken by BWSSB against the petitioner till appeal proceedings are concluded; liberty granted to file an appeal before Appellate Authority.

Sri. Hanumanthappa Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1679 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2023 (GM-BWSSB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 2^ND CROSS, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE -560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.N. SATHYA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, SUB-DIVISION (SW-4), BANAGIRINAGAR, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE -560 085

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ¸ÀASÉå: ¨ÉA.d.ªÀÄA/¸À.PÁ.¤.C(zÀ¥À)-4/¸À.C./Q.C.()/1278/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP No. 1679 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petition is preferred seeking following prayer:-

¶22

"Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice ¸ÀASÉå: ¨ÉA.d.ªÀÄA/¸À.PÁ.¤.C(zÀ¥À)-4/¸À.C./Q.C.()/1278/2022-23

¶23

issued by the respondent dated : 06-01-2023 produced at Annexure – 'G' , and grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant including the costs of this Writ Petition, under the circumstances, in the interest of justice.

¶24

Heard Sri. M.N. Sathya Raj, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the water connection to the petitioner had been disconnected in the year 2002 itself, but the receipt of bills did not stop, the bills were at Rs.3,241/- annually and now total amount that BWSSB claiming is to the tune of Rs.55,130/-. Therefore, he seeks an interim order of stay of the demand so made by the BWSSB.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1679 of 2023

¶28

Learned counsel for BWSSB would submit that there

¶29

is an appeal provision in terms of Section 120 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Appellate Authority.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, would submit that he would approach the Appellate Authority, but seeks a direction at the hands of this Court that BWSSB should not take any precipitative action till the Appellate Authority decides the appeal.

¶31

The submission merits acceptance.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons and recording the

¶33

aforesaid submissions, the following order is made.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The petition is disposed.

¶36

ii) The petitioner is reserved liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

iii) In the event, the petitioner would file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks

¶38

¶39

WP No. 1679 of 2023

¶40

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on its merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter.

¶41

iv) Till the appeal proceedings are concluded, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶42

v) It is made clear that in the event, the petitioner would not avail of the remedy of appeal, as observed hereinabove, BWSSB would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

PMR

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Hanumanthappa v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hanumanthappa v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka Rep by

Mr. Ktk Raheem Vs the State of Karnataka

Latha Vs State of Karnataka

Gurushree High Tech Multi Speciality Hospital Vs Commissioner for Health and Family Welfare and Chairman

Bhojaraj Vs Simon a

Sri. Channegowda Vs State of Karnataka