Disposed¶34

M Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2026WP/19608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BWSSB sanitary and water connection regularization; writ petition disposed with directions; fresh representation with necessary documents; consideration within sixty days; interim bar on precipitative action; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; GM-BWSSB; WP No. 19608 of 2021; NC: 2026:KHC:11025; High Court of Karnataka; M.G.S. Kamal; Annexure-A demand Rs.8,68,780 dated 22.05.2013; premises No.58, 7th Cross, Babusapalya, Chalkere Village, Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner to submit a fresh representation with necessary documents; respondent-BWSSB to afford sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within sixty days thereafter; no precipitative action till disposal of the representation. ¶34

M Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-Authorities (BWSSB) should regularize the petitioner's sanitary and water connections to premises No.58, 7th Cross, Babusapalya, Chalakere Village, Bengaluru, notwithstanding that the demanded amount had been paid. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Petition disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with necessary documents, as may be requisitioned by the respondent-BWSSB, for processing the request in accordance with law.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Respondent-BWSSB directed to afford the petitioner sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within sixty days of submission of the representation.

¶36

Key takeaways

Interim protection: no precipitative action shall be taken till disposal of the said representation.ratio¶37-38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-BWSSB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by M. Venugopal seeking direction to the State of Karnataka and BWSSB authorities to regularize the sanitary connection to premises No.58, 7th Cross, Babusapalya, Chalkere Village, Bengaluru. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the demand of Rs.8,68,780/- raised vide Annexure-A dated 22.05.2013 stood paid, yet the connections were not regularized. Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the request would be considered in accordance with law upon furnishing documents regarding the construction and its legality. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation with necessary documents and the respondent-BWSSB to afford sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within sixty days thereafter; no precipitative action was to be taken till disposal of the representation. (M.G.S. Kamal, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11025 WP No. 19608 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19608 OF 2021 (GM-BWSSB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M VENUGOPAL S/O MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.89, 16^TH D MAIN, HAL II STAGE BENGALURU-560 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE CHARIMAN BWSSB CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (M)-1 BWSSB, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY AND SANITARY E-1, SUB DIVISION, BWSSB KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 043.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11025 WP No. 19608 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR B.M.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SANITARY CONNECTION TO THE PREMISES NUMBER 58, 7^TH CROSS, BABUSAPALYA , CHALKERE VILLAGE, BANGALORE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part respondent-Authorities in regularizing his sanitary and water connections to the premises bearing No.58, 7^th Cross, Babusapalya, Chalakere Village, Bengaluru.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶28

amount as demanded by the respondent-BWSSB in terms of Annexure-A dated 22.05.2013 aggregating to sum of Rs.8,68,780/- is already been paid. That despite payment of said amount, respondent-BWSSB have not regularized the same.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11025 WP No. 19608 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the

¶32

other hand submits that if the petitioner furnishes the required documents with regard to constructions and its legality, his request would be considered in accordance with law.

¶33

Submission is taken on record.

¶34

Petition is disposed of.

¶35

Petitioner to make fresh representation along with

¶36

necessary documents, as may be requisitioned by the respondent-BWSSB for processing the request in accordance with law. On submission of the same. Respondent-BWSSB after affording sufficient opportunity to petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within sixty days thereafter.

¶37

No precipitative actions shall be taken till disposal of

¶38

the said representation.

¶39

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶40

RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

M Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Venugopal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bowring Institute Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Mary Vs the Secretary

A. Rajkumar @ Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish B Vs the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Anti Corrupation Bureau Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Mr Mohammed Habeeb Ur Rehman Vs the Administrator