Disposed

M/S Power Technologies v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/17388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a revised demand note levying BWSSB charges. The court disposed of it on the same findings as its earlier order in connected writ petitions: upholding Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction, and holding Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage Project charges illegal.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Power Technologies Vs the Chairman — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38431 WP No. 17388 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17388 OF 2017 (GM-BWSSB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S POWER TECHNOLOGIES

¶8

SITE NO.185/B, 3RD PHASE, 11TH MAIN, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE REP BY SMT.H.MANJULADEVI, 58 YEARS, W/O T.S.C RAMAKRISHNAIAH

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M) WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SHIVANANDA METI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38431 WP No. 17388 of 2017

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO.QUASH THE REVISED DEMAND NOTE DTD.31.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER OBJECTIONS DTD.30.4.2016 VIDE ANNEX-B.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri. Basavarajappa D.R., learned counsel for the petitioner/s, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivananda Meti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

The charges levied against the petitioner/s, 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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38431 WP No. 17388 of 2017

¶25

Court in W.P.No.20016 of 2021 c/w W.P.No.10020 of

¶26

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:

¶27

“35. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.

¶30

(ii) The demand of Advance Probable Pro Rata Charges and Treated Water Charges for Construction are upheld.

¶31

(iii) The demand of Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are held to be illegal.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(iv) Petitioners in these petitions who have deposited amounts demanded as Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are entitled to refund of the same, for which purpose the petitioners

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38431 WP No. 17388 of 2017

¶35

shall submit a representation. The same shall merit consideration within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶36

(v) In cases where in the event the petitioners have 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.”

¶37

In the light of the issues answered by this Court

¶38

supra standing covered to the case at hand on all its fours,

¶39

the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and observations.

¶40

Ordered accordingly.

¶41

As a consequence, pending I.A.s, if any, stand

¶42

disposed.

¶43

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶44

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 461

M/S Power Technologies v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Power Technologies v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Hani Vs the State

Mrs Shaguffa Sheriff Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Salomi Veronica Sujitha v Vs the State of Karnataka

Ranganath K Vs Range Forest Officer

Ibrar T P Vs State by Excise Pi