IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1006 OF 2016 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.3316 OF 2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. HIMALAYA CONTAINERS AND CARTONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY CORPORATE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.372 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANGAR, HAL II STAGE BENGALURU NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JAGMOHANLAL MAHESHWARI.
2. M/S. MANGALYA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.92, KEDIA ARCADE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY JAGMOHANLAL MAHESHWARI.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND:
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009 BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 34627/2011 AND 36034/2011 DATED 21/09/2015 AND B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND TO THE APPELLANT A SUM OF RS. 28,24,920/- BEING THE AMOUNT UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONER AND ILLEGALLY RETAINED BY RESPONDENT.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The petitioners are in appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.34627 of 2011 and 36034 of 2011 by which, the writ petitions were rejected as being devoid of merit.
2. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking refund of a sum of Rs.28,24,920/- to the petitioners which was unlawfully collected from the petitioners and illegally retained by the respondents. It was stated that on obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Bengaluru Development Authority, they have developed a Multistoried Residential Apartment Complex in Sy.No.17/2, Munnekolal village, Varthur Hobli. For obtaining water and sewerage connection, the petitioners made an application on 02.12.2004. On consideration of the application, the same was sanctioned directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.28,49,238/- being pro-rata charges, which was paid in the year 2007. It is stated that subsequently respondents demanded an additional amount of Rs.24,65,760/- which was also paid. As required by the Pollution Control Board, the petitioners have also installed Water Sewerage Treatment Plant. It is the contention of the petitioners that the subsequent demand of Rs.24,65,760/- is an illegal collection by the respondent-Board and they are entitled for refund of the same. The respondents justified their action and also justified the demand made by them. They admitted the delay in implementing the project due to several reasons.
3. The learned Single Judge noted that the respondents have provided water connection to the petitioners and the underground drainage is yet to be provided. Further the learned Single Judge has observed that the writ petition involves disputed question of fact as to whether the delay in implementing the project is due to the respondent or whether it is on account of the Bangalore Development Authority as contended by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioners have been provided with water connection. Insofar as sewerage connection is concerned, the respondents are still required to implement the project. The respondents have not refused to implement the project. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge by a reasoned order has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners.
4. We see no good ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms