M/S Sumuk Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:16392 WP No. 16569 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 16569 OF 2024 (GM-BWSSB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SUMUK PROJECTS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.832, 3^RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, R.R NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. YASHWANTH KUMAR. H, S/O. LATE. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G V.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 SRI GURUDEV GACCHINMAT, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16392 WP No. 16569 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 24.04.2024, BEARING NO. BWSSB-NOC-2024-4-75-040503501385, ISSUED BY THE R- 3(ANNEXURE-D) FOR DEMANDING THE GREATER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE PROJECT/BENEFICIARY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION (GBWASP/BCC) CHARGES IS CONCERNED AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE OF 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Sudhakar G.V., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Gurudev Gacchinmat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶24

The charges levied against the petitioner, 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 Court in W.P.No.20016 of 2021 c/w W.P.No.10020 of 2020 , disposed on

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16392 WP No. 16569 of 2024

¶26

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 is 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.

¶34

(v) In cases where in the event the petitioners has deposited the amount before this Court,

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:16392 WP No. 16569 of 2024

¶37

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.”

¶38

In the light of the issues answered by this Court supra

¶39

standing covered to the case at hand on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and observations. Ordered accordingly.

¶40

I.A.No.1 of 2024 is disposed, as a consequence.

¶41

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

CHS

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 486

M/S Sumuk Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sumuk Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Vikram Prabhakar Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Saddam Hasin Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Vikram Prabhakar Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Malappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. C S Harikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Krishna Priya Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka