1. The parties to these two writ petitions are the same and the issue essentially is also the same as arising against the demand made by respondents 1 to 3 against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into a development agreement where under the petitioner was to develop the property belonging to respondent No.4. In the said process, amongst others the petitioner was to construct four towers (blocks) which were indicated as ‘A’ to ‘D’. Insofar as the construction of the blocks ‘A’ & ‘B’ and provision of water and sewerage connection, there is no serious dispute inasmuch as the amount payable in that regard was demanded by the respondents through the note dated 29.10.2003 and the revised demand dated 24.11.2003. In respect of the same, the amount required to be paid by the petitioner to respondents No.1 to 3 was also paid. Subsequently when the issue relating to providing water and sewerage connections to ‘C’ & ‘D’ blocks constructed by the petitioner arose, the prorata charges and the interest on the amount towards prorata charges was included in the notice dated 27.11.2008. Through another notice dated 27.11.2008 the penalty on the prorata charges was demanded from the petitioner. It is in that light the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such action of respondents No.1 to 3 have preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.9251/2009. By such time, though the petitioner had paid the prorata charges as demanded, the petitioner contends that the same was paid under protest and in that direction the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the demand for prorata charges has assailed the same by filing the writ petition in W.P. No.9252/2009. In the said petition the provisions as contained in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (‘the Act, 1964 for short) and also the Water Supply Regulations (‘the Regulations’ for short) have been called in question.

3. Thus the composite contentions as urged in both these petitions put together is to the effect that the respondents No.1 to 3 have no power under the Act to collect prorata charges and even if such prorata charges could have been collected by respondents No.1 and 2, the demand for interest and penalty is not justified nor is authorized in law. That apart the amount which was to be paid towards prorata charges has been paid by the petitioner immediately after the demand was made and therefore, the question of collecting either interest or penalty on the said amount would not arise. In that view, the petitioner contends that the demand as made would not be justified and the amount as collected is required to be returned to the petitioner.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 having filed their objection statement to the petitions have opposed the prayer made in the petitions. It is contended that the very manner in which Blocks ‘C’ & ‘D’ have been constructed is without the approval from the competent authority which is also an issue which has been raised for consideration in the appropriate forum. With regard to the demand for prorata charges, it is contended that in any event when the petitioners have sought for water supply and sewerage connection for ‘C’ and ‘D’ blocks, the requisite prorata charges is required to be paid. In that regard it is contended that Section 16 of the Act, 1964 provides the power to the Board to levy rates, fees, rents and other charges so that adequate revenue is generated to effectively discharge its statutory obligation. In that view, it is contended that exercising the power available under the Act the demand has been made and in any event the petitioner having paid the prorata charges cannot raise any contentions at this point in time. Insofar as the demand for penalty and interest on the prorata charges, it is contended that though the request for providing water and sewerage connection was made, subsequently on inspection it was noticed that the petitioners have been unauthorisedly and illegally obtaining the water to B