LawSphereX

G.Subbarao v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and 3 others

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-11-24. G.Subbarao v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and 3 others. Read the...

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J u risdiction ) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18354 OF 2020 Betwee n: G. Subbarao, S/o. Late Chinanagaiah, age 61 years R/o. Plot. No. 699, Gokul, Plots, Venkataramana Colony, I\/iyapur, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Rep. by its It/anaging Director, Jalasoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Director- Revenue, Hlr/WS and SB. Ja laso udha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief General Manager, O and It4 Circle-lV HIvIWS and SB. S. R. Nagar, Hyderabad. 4. The General l\,4anager, O and It/ Division. No. l5 Hll,4WS and SB. Chandanagar, Hyderabad. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitutron of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondenls in Demanding from the petitioner water charges, Vide, CAN. No. 620377222, at 3 times than the normal rates basing on Clause 26(g) of G. O. Ms. No. 168 IVA and UD Department dated 07. 04. 2012,with effect from the date of providing the water supply connection to the Houses/Buildings of the petitioners by obtaining undertaking from the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, without Jurisdiction which is unconstitutional and to restrain the respondents from raising such bills for 3 times water charges and insisting for payment of same from the petitioners.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondent not to insist the petitioner to pay water charges, vide, CAN. No. 620377 222 at three times the normal rates on the ground of not submitting occupancy certificate from GHIr/C under G. O. Ms. No. 16B MA &UD Department dated 07. 04. 2012, pending disposal of the above said writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR HMWS & SB The Court made the following: ORDER *\. \ />- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18354 of 2O2O ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Board. The Writ Petition is disposed ol at the stage of adnrission itse If.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 03. i l. 2O2O, passed by this Court in W. P. Nos. 28O14 of 2014 & batch. The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents herein. In view of the same and lor the reasons alike in the common order, dated 03. 11. 2O2O, passed in W. P. Nos. 28014 ol 2Ol4 &, batch, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing an1. ' opinir-rn on merits rvith respect to the various issues raised in the writ petition, directing the respondents-Board to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Proceedings No. HMWSSB/ Revenue/ 20 1 8 - 19 7 93, dated 07. 0 1. 20 1 9, and pass I necessary orders, in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-K.

ESIM ASSISTANT R STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER to'',, tVletropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage . ,n" Managing Director, Hyderabad a oi rO, J a t i so-uo n a, Kn a i rata bad' H yd-ela b. a 9 Hyderabad' 2. The Director- nevenue] itvifr3'an6-54' Jalasoudha'Khairalabad' Nn;;;g;;, O anO trrt Circte-tV HlvlWS and SB S R Nagar' 3. The Chief General Hvderabad. S and SB' Chandanagar' O and M Division No l HI\4WS + The General Manager, Hvderabad. Advo-cate [OPUC] s ol,""cCiJsri lvl Koteswara Rao' FoR iiH'rws'a SB Advocate [oPUCl 6 one cc to Srir sr. i;;ii;ih;;v' si 7. Two CD CoPies 28O'14 1t2O2O in W P No of 2014 and Batch) *ith , . "pV order dt:03/1 tnfong "f -t-\-,- HIGH COURT DATED 2411112020 ORDER WP. No. 18354 of 2020 ::-- 1 9 * ,o o s uJ rl,J . q) c f- Qt{' d. (a) o ,! t s (. ' *. 'o $ ) WP DISPOSING OF THE WITHOUT COSTS @ x THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No,28O14 of 2OL4 WRIT PETITION Nos. 609 and 7L29 of 2015 WRIT PETITION Nos.

14163 and 28975 of 2016 WRIT PETITION Nos. 36931 and 37OL4 of 2Ot7 WRIT PETITION Nos. 4648. 24226 and 46363 of 2018 WRIT PETITION Nos. 1384/ 1539, 3637, 3642,79L6, L22a7, 17297, t9A37, 2L233, 23174, 26262,265t4, 2A23L, 2A962 and 29204 of 2019 WRIT PETITION Nos. 107, 586, 630, LzAA, 2290, 43A6, 43A7,4388, 439s, 44t4, 4546, 4552, 457 L, 4573, 457 4, 45AO, 4599, 46L4, 464L, 4642, 464a, 47 L9, 47 49, 47 54, 47 69, 4779, 47 94, 4401, 4AO4, 4A27, 497 5, 497 6, 49aO, 4942, 49A6, 5OA4, 5LO2, 51O3, 5141, 593A, 6036, 6046,7970, a36O, 836s, 4440, 4596t 4643, 4972,8975, 9031, 9063. 10617, 10619/ 10621, 10635, 1O657, 10698/ 10699, 1O718, LO94L, LtO76, 113O5, 11495, 11516, 11543, 11545, 11604, 11663, 11665, LL666, 1L749, tL77t, LL773, LL774, 11775, tL776t LL77A, LL783t Lt785, Lt793, Lt798, LLA22, LLA93, 11899, 11900, 119O1, 11905, LL936, l2OO2, 12467, L2472, L2579, L2664 and 12817 of 2O2O COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Sri l.

Ramachandra Rao, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Standing Counsel Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB), for the respondents. It is a case where challenge is made to the charging of three times tariff in place of normal tariff, by relying on Rule 21(v) of G. O. Ms. No. B6 dated 03. 03. 2006, and Rule 26(g) of G. O. Ms. No. 168 dated 07. O4. 2072, for water supply for the petitioners who have failed to submit Occupancy Certificate. It may be noted that vide G. O. Ms. No. 86 dated 03. 03. 2006, the Rules under the name and style of Hyderabad Building rules came into effect. It may also be further noted that in none of the writ petitions there is any challenge to the G. O. Ms. No. 86 dated 03. 03. 2006, or to the subsequent G. O. Ms. No. 168 dated 07. 04. 2012.

Vide these two Government Orders, by way of Rules, wherever there is purport of the Rules and the Government Orders so far as relevant is concerned is that the submission of Occupancy Certificate was made mandatory and in the event of non- ! \t, l\01. 1 li,ll & hii l ( Kl{. submission of Occupancy Certificate, the water charges shall be levied three times of normal charges. Though it was initially contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that levy of three times of normal charges is unauthorised, when the matter of taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had placed on record the proceedings of HMWSSB vide Proceedings No. HMWSSB/Revenue/2O18- L9/793 dated 07. 01. 2019, and contended that in the said proceedings dated 07. 01. 2019, a Policy decision has been taken by the HMWSSB and the said decision would squarely apply to the petitioners in W. P. No. 2B014 of 201,4, W. P. No. 7129 of 2015 and W. P. No. 46363 of 2018.

Learned Standing Counsel Sri T, Sudhakar Reddy, after obtaining instructions from the HN4WSSB, filed a Memo dated 22. O9. 2020 before this Court enclosing the proceedings of HIvIWSSB vide Lr. No, HMWSSB/Dir(Rev)/2020-21/2253 dated 21. 09. 2020, and stating that the HMWSSB stands by its proceedings dated 07. O1. 2079 and willing to implement the same; and the said decision communicated under Proceedings dated 07. 01. 2019 would apply to all cases who are eligible. When queried, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel would submit that he would be satisfied if the cases of petitioners are considered in terms of HMWSSB decision vide Proceedings dated 07. 01. 2019. The lead arguments which were advanced by Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the decision of HMWSSB which the learned Standing Counsel had communicated by way of Memo dated 22. 09.

2O2O before this Court, were adopted by other learned counsels Sri Muddana Koteswara Rao, Sri Sravan Kumar and other counsels appearing for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions, and have prayed for rf l80l,t l0ld & hilch ( KIi. . 1 disposal of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners in terms of Proceedings of HMWSSB dated 07 . 01. 2079 for which prayer there was no objection from the respondents counsels. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits with respect to various issues raised in the writ petitions, with a direction to the respo ndent- H MWSS B to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Proceedings No. H MWSSB/Revenue/20t8- 19/793 dated 07. 01. 2019. No costs. lvliscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03'd November,2O2O ksm

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.