IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.38784/2013 (GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
KRISHNA KUMARI KOKA W/O KISHORE N. KOKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS "KAY KAY HEIGHTS" NO.75, 2ND MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND:
1 . BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN V.V. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
2 . BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER N.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 002.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.H. MOTIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1-ABSENT;
SRI. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2-ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DATED:23.08.2013 VIDE ANNX-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None appears.
2. This petition has been filed in the year 2013 for quashing of communication dated 23.08.2013- Annexure-F issued by the first respondent whereunder petitioner has been called upon to furnish documents to consider the applications submitted for grant of water supply and sewage line and petitioner has been called upon to pay prorata charges.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that the property bearing No.104, 2nd main road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru is owned by her and she having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 25.06.1990-Annexure-B had obtained a building plan from second respondent for construction of apartments and said plan has been sanctioned by competent authority. It is contended that subsequent to construction of apartments, officials of the second respondent is said to have visited the apartments on 20.06.2013 for disconnecting the sewerage connection on account of non payment of prorata charges. Hence, contending that she has already paid Rs.22,150/- towards sanitary and water connection while sanctioning of building plan to BBMP and amount now demanded by second respondent is excessive of what has been already been paid. Hence, impugned notice dated 23.08.2013 issued by the second respondent has been called in question. Respondents though are served and represented by learned Advocates none have appeared.
4. In fact, this Court while entertaining the petition and issuing notice on 11.09.2013 had directed respondent No.1 to maintain status quo with regard to connections that had already been provided to the premises in question. However, by impugned notice, first respondent is demanding that petitioner has to pay prorate charges. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is granted liberty to submit reply to said note by enclosing documents if any in support of her claim, upon which first respondent shall adjudicate the matter and pass orders thereon and same shall be communicated to petitioner within two (2) weeks from date of such decision being taken. Till said exercise is undertaken, first respondent is directed not to disconnect connection already provided to the apartment as indicated in the impugned notice. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE RU