Ramadevara Mutt Trust Vs Chairman

RAMADEVARA MUTT TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MELUKOTE (P.0) MANDYA DISTRICT AND ALSO BRANCH AT LAKSHMINSRAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE NO 01 WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK 3^RD STAGE BASVESWARNAGAR BENGALURU 560079 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MAHANT JAGADGURU SWAMY VISHWAKESENACHARYA JI MAHARAJ.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. N KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

CHAIRMAN BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CAVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU 560009.

¶19

ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUB-DIVISION WARD N0 13 BASAVESHWARANAGAR BWSSB BENGALURU 560079.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CHANGE THE WATER CONNECTION BILLING BEARING RR NO. LFO NO. W-493705/W17-66 FROM NON-DOMESTIC TO DOMESTIC PURPOSE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.11.2022 AND 04.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner's cause for the present petition essentially stems from two assertions viz., a conversion of a domestic connection into a commercial connection and abrupt disconnection of sewage/water connections to the premises. The petitioner is a Trust, which according to the pleadings, manages multiple Temples including a Temple in Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru.

¶30

This Court, on 30.08.2025 with Sri N

¶31

Kumar [ the learned counsel for the petitioner ] asserting that the respondents have arbitrarily disconnected the sewage and water connection to the Temple premises, has granted an interim order permitting the petitioner/its representative to ensure, at its cost, to restore to its property sewage/water connection, but without tampering any meters that could be at the premises. This Court has also

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

stipulated that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Registry by 01.09.2025.

¶36

Sri N Kumar submits that there is due compliance with the condition to deposit and the amount is with the Registry. Sri B.S. Shrinivas, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the respondents are justified in raising a bill with a nondomestic tariff because the petitioner has established a Community Hall within its premises and that the consumption must be on a non-domestic tariff . The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not availed a water connection and it only has a sewer connection. On the reason for the abrupt disconnection when the petitioner had an event underway, Sri B.S. Shrinivas submits that notice was issued but there was no compliance.

¶37

Sri N Kumar does not dispute that the

¶38

petitioner has only a sewage connection and that this Court's order dated 30.08.2025 must be confined to

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

this connection. This Court must record that both Sri

¶43

N Kumar and Sri B S Shrinivas propose to place on record details of an unsavoury incident within the premises each wanting to justify the other's conduct with Sri N Kumar even stating that the petitioner's representatives have approached the jurisdictional police with a complaint but they have refused to receive the complaint.

¶44

This Court, on a careful consideration, is of the view that the occasion for the dispute must only be confined to whether the petitioner must pay

¶45

as per domestic or non domestic tariff and there should not be any escalation and this must be a condition precedent for this Court's interference in the present proceedings. When this is put to the learned counsels both agree. The question for consideration, viz., whether there must be any interference is examined in the light of the afore.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The petitioner must, within a reasonable

¶50

time, avail remedy under Section 120 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1964 [for short, 'the BWSSB Act' ] if there is any grievance about the respondents' decision to raise demand on non-domestic tariff for the sewage connection availed and the petitioner must be at liberty to raise all grounds relevant to this question. Insofar as the amount in deposit, this Court is of the opinion that this amount should be transferred to the second respondent but subject to the decision in the appeal. On the petitioner’s request for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal, this Court must observe that it cannot be gainsaid that adjunct to the appellate power would also be the power to consider a request for interim arrangement. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:34803 WP No. 26390 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

under Section 120 of the BWSSB Act and

¶57

if the petitioner avails this remedy within six [6] weeks observing that the appellate Authority shall consider the request, if any, for an interim arrangement until the disposal of the appeal.

¶58

[b] The Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the second respondent subject to the details of the account for online transfer of the amount

¶59

being furnished and the orders, if any, in the appeal that the petitioner may file.

¶60

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶61

AN/-

Ramadevara Mutt Trust v. Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadevara Mutt Trust v. Chairman

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

Mysore Educational Trust Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Sri Channakeshava Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Rayappa Vs Station House Officer

Sri Nanjundeshwara Education Society Vs M/S Protium Finance Limited

M/S Bethal Education Trust (R) Vs M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd.

Sri Dr Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka