SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Kar) 304

2011 (3) KCCR 2278
High Court of Karnataka
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
M/s. Sai Poorna Heights Apartment Owner’s Association, Rep by its President Rear Admiral K. Narayanan
Versus
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board By its Chief Engineer & Another
Writ Petition No. 27386 of 2010 (GM-BWSSB)
Decided on: 24-05-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:B.M. Baliga, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Narayan & K.N. Keshavamurthy, Advocates.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 14, 226 & 227: [Mohan Shatanagoudar, J] Fixation of Rate/Tariff for water supply - Held, The respondent-sewerage Board will be burdened, as the petitioners are having their own arrangements for drawing water from bore well or tankers and it is not possible for the respondent-Board to assess the quantum of water consumed by each of the individual flat rate of Rs.50/= per month from the individual houses/flats, which are not receiving water from the respondent-Board, and the same cannot be said to be unreasonable, more so the instant case Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot venture into the matter of price/rate fixation, in the domain of the executive unless such fixation is unreasonable, which flows from the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Narayan Iyer v Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1986.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is the Apartment Owner’s Association. It has questioned the bill at Annexure-‘K’ issued by the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short ‘BWSSB’), demanding balance amount of Rs. 2,01,295/- being the arrears of sewerage charges. The respondent-Board have charged the apartment owners Rs. 50/- per month per flat as sewerage charges based on the order issued by the State Government. According to the petitioner’s, charging of Rs. 50/- per month from individual flat owners towards sewerage charges is illegal and is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

2. The State Government has issued an order as per Annexure-‘J’ dated 27.1.2005 fixing the water tariff and sanitary charges for domestic and non-domestic connections.

The sanitary charges in respect of flats having water supply from BWSSB is different from the sanitary charges without the water supply from BWSSB. For better appreciation of the tariffs, the charges prescribed by the State Government, followed by the respondent–Board are as under:

A. Sanitary Charges with water supply:-

Sl. No. Consumption of water Sanitary charges Sanitary Charges

Domestic Non-Domestic

1 Upto 25,000Lts Rs. 15/- flat rate 20% of Bill

2 25,001-50,000Lts 15% of Bill 20% of Bill

3 50,001 Lts and above 20% of Bill 20% of Bill

B. Sanitary Charges:-

2. For premise having water supply &

UGD connection but supplementing

Water supply by Tankers/borewells

(a) Domestic & Apartments Rs. 50/- per month per

(b) Non-domestic individual house per flat.

Revised from Rs.200 to

Rs.300 per month per HP of

borewell.

3. Premises not having water supply Rs.300/- per month.

connection from BWSSB but having

only UGD connection


Drawing the attention of the Court, Sri B.M. Baliga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondent’s action in charging Rs. 50/-from individual flat owners towards sanitary charges is illegal, inasmuch as, the respondents are charging Rs. 15/- at a flat rate per flat in respect of flats which are provided with water supply from the respondent-Board, and whereas, Rs. 50/- per month is charged towards sanitary charges for the flat which does not get water supply from the respondent-Board. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that the owners of flats who are having the benefit of water supply, as well as the sewerage connections from the respondent-Board, are charged less per month as compared to the persons who are the owners of the flats having no water supply from the respondent-Board. Thus, according to him, action of the respondents in collection Rs. 50/- per month towards sanitary charges is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the persons who are getting higher benefit from the respondents are being charged less than the petitioner who are getting lesser benefits.

3. The undisputed facts are that the apartments complex in question has 96 apartments/flats. Entire building is not being supplied with the water by the respondent-Board. The flats are having their own arrangements of getting water from the tankers or by drawing water from the borewells. It is also not in dispute that each individual flat is connected with drainage and consequently, each individual flat is discharging sewerage and the sewerage lines are maintained by the Board.

Though the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prima facie appears to be attractive, deserves to be rejected on going deep into the matter.

It is no doubt true that the flats/houses which are being supplied with water by the respondent-Board are charged with Rs.15/- per flat if such flats/houses draw water from the respondent-Board only upto 25,000 liters. If the houses/flat receives water from the respondent-Board to the extent of 25,000 to 50,000 liters, then such house/flat owner will have to pay 15% of the water bill towards sanitary charges. If the house/flat receives m





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top