IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No. 30597/2010(GM-BWSSB) BETWEEN:
1. THE PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1, WS & S.SUB DVN.(CENTRAL) BWSSB, CHIKKALALBAGH, BANGALORE – 560 053.
(BY SRI.P.R.ARJUN , ADV. FOR SRI.M.S.NARAYAN, ADV.) AND:
SMT.SATHYA SREE V., D/O.LATE M.GANGADHAR, NO.19, DARJIPET, R.T.STREET CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 053.
(BY SMT.SUKANYA V., ADV. FOR M/S. HVV ASSTS., ADVS.) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH IN ORDER BEARING PLA NO.32880/2009 DATED 12.07.2010 AT ANNEXURE `A’.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA No.32880/2009.
2. The petitioners herein had issued a demand notice to the respondent claiming in all a sum of Rs.39,181/- as the arrears of consumption charges and interest thereon calculated up to August 2009. The respondent herein being aggrieved by such demand had initiated the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA No.32880/2009. The permanent Lok Adalat on considering the rival contentions has passed the award dated 12.07.2010 whereby the petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to restore the water supply and sanitary connection by accepting the arrears of Rs.8,173/- within three months from the said date. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court in this petition.
3. The respondent has filed detailed objection statement enclosing documents thereto with regard to the consumption as made and the manner in which the petitioners have taken a decision to disconnect the water supply and claim the exorbitant amount.
4. In the light of the above, having heard the learned counsel, I have perused the petition papers. The fact that the respondent herein is the owner of the property bearing No.19, Darjipet, R.T.Street, Bengaluru relating to which the present arrears had been demanded by the petitioners is not in dispute. The petitioners while claiming the amount from the respondent herein had quantified the arrears through the demand notice dated 24.06.2009 at Rs.13,099/- towards consumption and on the same they had levied interest of Rs.25,646/-. Thus in all the demand was for a sum of Rs.38,963/-. The permanent Lok Adalat while taking note of the contention as put forth has taken into consideration the undisputed position that the respondent had let out the premises whereby there were certain disputes between the respondent herein and the tenant. The understanding between the landlord and the tenant was that the tenant was required to pay the consumption charges. In that light the respondent herein had contended that though the petitioners herein claimed that the consumption charges had not been paid, no notice had been issued to the respondent calling upon to pay the amount on any earlier point in time and as such the claim for interest is not justified. The notice as issued on 24.06.2009 is only subsequent to the tenant having vacated the premises after the respondent herein had initiated appropriate proceedings against the tenant.
5. Therefore, in that light, the respondent herein had contended before the Lok Adalat that the respondents and the concerned officials of the petitioners herein were hand in glove with the tenant and in that circumstance the respondent herein cannot be burdened with excessive arrears as claimed and also there was no justification to impose the interest and claim the same from the respondent. The Permanent Lok Adalat while taking into consideration the document at Ex.P1 wherein the arrears had been mentioned as Rs.8,000/- during the month of September 1998 and the arrears had not amounted to the extent as claimed by the petitioners herein had also taken into consideration the document at Ex.P2. Further, the Lok Adalat having noticed the voluntary submission of the respondents to pay the arrears of Rs.8,000/- had also taken into consideration that in the circumstance of the present case there would be no justification to levy and burden the respondent herein with interest, but has in that light restricted the amount to Rs.8,173/- towards arrears. Hence, a direction has been issued to the respondents therein to accept the said amount and in that light to provide connection.
6. In a matter of the present nature, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat after noticing the documents available on record, taking note of the actual amount that was due as arrears and in that circumstance keeping in view the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case has been of the opinion that the imposition of the interest was not justified. Having arrived at the conclusion, when such award passed by the Lok Adalat is with reference to the facts and the materials available on record the same would not call for interference in the writ petition of the present nature.
7. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms