Disposed

Ch. V.V. Prasada Rao, v. The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewarage Board

Telangana HC3 Aug 2015WP/32678/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench disposed of a writ petition regarding high water bills and disconnection without notice. The Court held it could not decide the merit of excess billing and directed the petitioner to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit representation; recovery of remaining amount stayed pending submission; petitioner directed to pay regular bills.

Ch. V.V. Prasada Rao, Vs The Hyderabad Metro Water… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.32678 of 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ch.V.V.Prasada Rao

¶6

… Petitioner/Appellant (s)

¶7

and The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyd.

¶8

… Respondent (s)

¶9

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03.08.2015

¶10

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.32678 OF 2012

¶14

O R D E R :

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he is the co-owner of the house bearing municipal No.23-76/A, Nethaji Nagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, along with his brother Ch.Ramanjaneyulu. They have been paying all the water bills since inception, to the

¶16

respondent authorities as per the norms and statutory rules. While so, the respondent board issued bill for the month of July, 2012 for an amount of Rs.17,601.94 charging interest and also arrears for an amount of

¶17

Rs.16,575/-. When the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for settlement of the grievance, meanwhile the operator of the respondent authorities disconnected the water supply and connection, without any notice. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶18

This Court while ordering Notice before admission on 17.10.2012, granted interim direction to the respondent Board for restoration of water connection subject to payment Rs.8,800/- by the petitioner.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 submits that as per the orders passed by this Court on 17.10.2012 water connection has been restored on payment of Rs.8,800/- by the petitioner and that if the petitioner has any grievance, he can make an application to the respondent No.3 and it can be considered and necessary orders will be passed.

¶21

In this writ petition this Court cannot decide the issue whether the respondents issued bills in excess of the consumption made by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to make a representation before the 3^rd respondent in respect of his grievance and the respondent Board to consider the same and pass orders.

¶22

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation to the 3^rd respondent in respect of his grievance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the

¶23

same and pass orders in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to submit any application, the respondents may take action according to law. Till then, stay of recovery of remaining amount out of Rs.17,601/-. But, however petitioner shall pay regular bills. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 03.08.2015 t k.

Ch. V.V. Prasada Rao, v. The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewarage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. V.V. Prasada Rao, v. The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewarage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Krishna Yadav Vs The Deputy Commissioner

C. Renubabu , Golla Renubabu, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

P.Laxmaiah, Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department

K. Anuradha Vs The Nizamabad Municipal Corporation

E. Padmaja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Balachander, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh