K Radhakrishna v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 20045 OF 2020 Between:
K. Radhakrishna, S/o. Satyana rayana, age B0 years R/o. Plot,No.415,416,423,424, Gokul Plots, Venkataramana Colony, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND
1. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Rep, by its lr/anaging Director, Jalasoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Director- Revenue, HMWS & SB. Jalasoud ha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
3. The Chief General lVlanager, O & N/ Circle-lV HIvIWS & SB. S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad
4. The General Manager, O & M Division, No.15 HII/IWS & SB. Chandanagar, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in Demanding from the petitioners, water, charges, Vide, CAN. No.620424714 at 3 times the normal rates basing on Clause 26(9) of G.O.Ms.No.168 MA & UD Department dated 0710412012, with effect from the date of providing the water supply connection to the Houses/Buildings of the petrtioners by obtaining undertaking from the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, without Jurisdiction which is u nco nstitutiona I and to restrain the respondents from raising such bills for 3 times water charges and insisting for payment of same from the petitioners consequently direct the respondent to adjust the amount already paid in excess to the credit of the above service connection in future bills.
IA 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 respondent not to insist the petitioner to pay water charges, vide, CAN. No.620424714 at three times the normal rates on the ground of not submitting occupancy certificate from GHMC under G.O.Ms.No.168 IVA & UD Department dated 0710412012, pending disposal of the above said writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MUDDANA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI T. SUOHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR HMWSSB) The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2OO45 of 2O2O ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-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 2Ol4 & batch.
The above said submission is not disputed by the lcarned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents herein. In view of the same and for the reasons alike in the common :. order, dated 03.I1.2O2O, passed in W.P.Nos.28014 of 2014 & batch, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, lr'ithout expressing any opinion on merits with respect to the various issues raised in the writ petition, directing the respondent-Board to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Proceedir-rgs No.HMWSSB/Revenue/2018-19 I 793, dated 07.O1.2019, 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.
sD/-K.O ASSISTA NT REG RAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER M To, 1. The Manaqinq Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, JalSsoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad
2. i[;'Dir;;i;;--nev"nre, Htr,lwS ino sa. Jalasoudhl,Khairatabadr Hyderabad'
5. ii.i6 CiiticeneiaiNairiager, o & M Circle-lv HMWS and SB S R Nagar' Hvderabad +. f6e-Oeneial lt4anager, O & tr/ Division, No.15 HMWS and SB Chandanagar' Hvderabad.
s. Ohe-C-C io Sri Muddana Koteswara Rao, Advocate p?qqf-. .^.
6. O;; CC io Sri T. Sudhakar Reddv (SC FOR HMWSSB) IOPUCI (Along with a copy of order dated 03.11.2020 in w.P.No.2801 4 of 2014 and batch.) 7 . Two CD CoPies CHR
HIGH COURT DATED:1211112020
ORDER
W.P.No.20045 of 2020 e vi (r q 20 it0y2020 I \i,+ \*"\ r<.==;'--2DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COTS s:V.
ScDt\eD )\- :-\rt \- )-o
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.28014 oT 2OL4 WRIT PETITION Nos.5O9 and 7L29 of 2015 WRIT PETITION Nos.14163 and 28975 of 2016 WRIT PETITION Nos.36931 and 37O14 ot 2ot7 WRIT PETITION Nos.4648, 24226 and 46363 of 2018 WRIT PETITION Nos.1384, L539, 3637, 3642, 79L6, 122A7, t7297, L9A37 , 2L233, 23L74, 26262, 265L4, 2823L, 2a962 and 29204 of 2019 WRIT PETITION Nos.107, 586,630, LZAA, 2290, 4385, 4387, 4388, 439s, 44t8, 4546, 4552, 457L, 4573, 4574, 45AO, 4599, 46L4, 464t, 4642, 4648, 47 L9, 47 49, 47 54, 47 69, 47 7 9, 47 98, 4a0t, 4AO4, 4a27, 497 5, 497 6 | 4980, 49A2, 49A6,5084, 5102, 51O3, 5141, 5938, 6036, 6046,7970,8360, 8365, 8440, 8596, 4643, a972, A97s,9O3L,9063, 10617, 10619, 10621, 10635, 10657, 10698, 10699, 10718, LO94L, LLO76, 11305, 11495, 11s16, 11543, 11545, 11604, 11663, 11665, LL666, LL749, Lr77L, rL773, LL774, tL77s, 1L776, L1778, LL7A3,lL7a5, tt793, L1798, 11822, 11893, 11899, 11900, 11901, 11905, L1936, L2OO2, t2467, t2472, t2579, L2664 and 12817 of 2O2O COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Sri J. 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.86 dated 03.03.2006, and Rule 26(q) of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2072, 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.O4.2O72.
l rvp_2E014 20 l4 & batch CKR. 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/2018- 19/793 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.28014 of 2014, 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 HMWSSB, filed a Memo dated 22.O9.2020 before this Court enclosing the proceedings of HN4WSSB vide Lr.No.
HMWSSB/Dir(Rev) / 2020-21/ 2253 dated 21.09.2020, and stating that the HMWSSB stands by its proceedings dated 07.01.2019 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.O1.2079. 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 Muddana Koteswara Rao, Sri Sravan Kumar and other counsels appearing for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions, and have prayed for
wp-28014,2014 & hatch CKR. ] ,) disposal of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners in terms of Proceedings of HMWSSB dated 07.01.2019 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- HMWSSB to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the Proceedings No. HMWSSB/Revenue/2078-79/793 dated 07.01.2019. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03'd November, 2020 ksm