Gandyadapu Rajesham v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board
H'GH COURT FOR TH oru J5 esJfJiDo F TE LA N GA NA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY F TWo TH o usA r?'f^l| i#lf#ovE r\4 B E R PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITI ON NO: 16322 0F 2020 Betwee n:
Gandyadapu Rajesham. s/o. Shankaraiah. Age 4g vears. occupation. Advocate, R/o. Plot No.21lA, Cyberhiils. GuttatabegumpetiVaOnipur. nyOera'Oao _SOObei"" ...PETITIONER AND
1. Hyderabad ]Velropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Jalasoudha, ^ Khairjltabad, Hydera bad. Re.p.. by-its Chai rma n-cIm-t\Ianagi ng Oireitoi
2. The Drrector - Technicat, NI!4WS_& SB, Jalasoudha XhairaiibiO, Hyterabad
3. Chief General Manager, O & M Circle-lV, HIVWS & SB, S.R.Naoar.'HvOeriUaa
4. General Manager, Oand M Div.No.15, HMWS & SB, Chandanjgai, tiyOeranJd ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the Respondents in demanding from the petitioner water charges vide Can No. 619250031 at 3 times to the normal rates basing on clause 269 of Go.[t/s.No.168 MA & UD Departmenl dl.7l4l2O12 with effect from the date of providing water supply connection to building of the petitioner is illegal and as contrary to Sec.
22 of the Hyderabad tr,4etropolitan Water Supply Sewerage Act, 1989 and to restrain the respondents from raising such bills for 3 times water charges and insisting for the payment of the same from the petitioner. 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 to direct the Respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay arrears of water charges at 3 times for the petitioner vide Can No.619250031 to the normal rates from the date of providing water supply connection to building of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ Petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. CHALAPATHI RAo C.r"i"f forthe Respondents: SRI T' SUDHAKAR REDDY' SC FOR HMwS & SB The Court made the following: ORDER I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A'ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1 6322 of 2020 ORDER:
HeardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandSri T.sudhakar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Board. The Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
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 03.11.2O2O, passed by this Court in W.P'Nos'28014 of 2074 & batch.
The above said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents herein. In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the common order, dated 03.11.2020, passed in W.P.Nos.28014 of 2014 &' batch, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits with 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 18 - t9 / Zg3, dated O7.O 1.20 1 9, and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SDLM.RAMANA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGI AR ,TRUE COPY'
SECTI OFFICER To,
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Jalasoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Director- Technical, HMWS & SB, Jalasoudha Khairatabad, Hyderabad
3. Chief General lvlanager, O & tt/ Circle-lV, HMWS & SB, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ! Qenelql Manager, O & M Div.No.15, HMWS and SB, Chandanagar, Hyderabad
5. One CC to Sri S. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, SC for HIVWS 6 SB Advocate tOpUCl
7. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of order dt:03/'1 1/2020 in W.p.No .28014 of 2014 and Batch) SM Y
HIGH COURT DATED:2411112020
ORDER
WP.No.16322 of 2020 ,"€ E s ( ((.
o O *r.
0 4 DEC 2020 ", ;-o .A !t, aiDISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS \
THE HON'BL SRI JU TICE C ALLA K DANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.28O14 of 2014 WRIT PETITION Nos.6O9 and 7L29 of 2015 WRIT PETITION Nos.14163 and 28975 of 201G WRIT PETITION Nos.36931 and 37O14 ot 2Ot7 WRIT PETITION Nos,4648, 24226 and 46363 of 2018 WRIT PETITION Nos.1384, 1539,3637,3642,79L6, 12287, t7297, L9837, 21233, 237.74, 26262, 265L4, 2A231, 2A962 and 29204 of 2019 WRIT PETITION Nos.1O7, 586, 630, 1288, 22901 4386, 4387, 43AA, 4395, 44L4, 4546, 4552, 457 L, 4573, 4574, 4580, 4599, 46L4,464Lt 4642,464A, 4719t 4749,4758t 4769,4779,4798,4AO1t 4AO4, 4A27, 4975, 4976t 4980, 4982, 4986t 5084, 5102/ 5103, 5141, 5938, 6035, 6046,7970,8360, 8365, a44O, A596, A643, A972,897s, 9O31, 9063, 10617, 10619, 10621, 10635, 10657, 1O698, 10699, 1071a, LO94L| L,-O76, 113O5, 11495. 11516, 11s43, 11545, 11504, 11663, 11655, L1666, L1749, Ll77t, Lt773, tL774, LL77s, Lr776, LL77a, rL7A3, rl7a5, tL793, tL79A, 11822, 11a93/ 11a99, 11900, 11901, 11905, 11936, 12002, L2467 | L2472, t2579, 12664 and 12817 of 2020 COMMO 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.vs't'lcilbo dated 03,03.2006, and Rule 26(9) of G'O Ms'No'168 dated 07'04'2Ot2' 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 RulesunderthenameandstyleofHyderabadBuildingrulescameinto 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.
\\n lS(rl.l ll)l'l & Lr.trLlL (-KI{. J 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- 7gl7g3 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'28014 of 2074, W'P No'7129 of 2015 and W.P.No.46363 of 2018.
Learned Standinq Counsel Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, after obtaining instructions from the HMWSSB, filed a Memo dated 22.09.2020 before this Court enclosing the proceedings of HMWSSB vide Lr.No.
HMWSSB/Dir(Rev)/2020-21 /2253 dated 2L.09.2020, and stating that the HMWSSB stands by its proceedings dated 07.01.2019 and willing to 'i Iimplement 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 22.09.2020 before this Court, were adopted by other learned counsels Sri lYuddana Koteswara Rao, Sri Sravan Kumar and other counsels appearing for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions, and have prayed for
\{l) lllrt4 l(,14 a( oarcJl CKR..I J disposar of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners in terms of proceedings of HMWSSB dated 07 .01.2019 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 respondent-H MWSSB to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Proceedings No.HMWSSB/Revenue/2078-t91793 dated 07.01.2019. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed, CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03'd November,2020 ksm t-/