Disposed

M/S Mukunda Infra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/6698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged BWSSB's demand note levying Beneficiary Capital Contribution, GBWASP, Advance Probable Pro Rata and Treated Water Charges for construction towards an NOC. Following its earlier order in W.P.No.20016/2021, the court disposed of the petition on the same findings: the latter two charges upheld, the former two held illegal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed on the same findings as W.P.No.20016/2021: APPR and Treated Water charges upheld; BCC and GBWASP charges held illegal.

M/S Mukunda Infra Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38454 WP No. 6698 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6698 OF 2023 (GM-BWSSB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. MUKUNDA INFRA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. B. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, KHATHA NO. 311, SY. NO. 1/1, 1/9, 29/6, 29/4, 29/7, KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, WARD NO. 54, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB), REPRSENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, I FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:38454 WP No. 6698 of 2023

¶17

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (EAST) VII FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTE DATED 14/03/2023 FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REMITTANCE OF THE DEMAND OF RS.40,80,210/WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS NOC FEES, ADVANCE PROBABLE PRORATA CHARGES, GBWASP/BCC CHARGES AND TREATED WATER CHARGES FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING AT KATHA NO. 311, SY.NO. 1/1, 1/9, 29/6, 29/4, 29/7 KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, WARD NO. 54, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560092 UNDER THE LIMITS OF CMC/TMC UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri. Girish B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner/s, Sri. Thejesh P., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38454 WP No. 6698 of 2023

¶25

The charges levied against the petitioner/s, in the

¶26

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

¶27

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:

¶28

“35. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.

¶31

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

¶32

(iii) The demand of Beneficiary Capital Contribution Charges and Greater

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38454 WP No. 6698 of 2023

¶35

Bangalore Water Sewerage project charges are held to be illegal.

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

(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.”

¶39

In the light of the issues answered by this Court

¶40

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

¶41

the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings

¶42

and observations.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:38454 WP No. 6698 of 2023

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

disposed.

¶48

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶49

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 486 CT: BHK

M/S Mukunda Infra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mukunda Infra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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