High Court for State of TelanganaWP/36931/2017disposed of no costs

Smt. Sunitha Gudniya v. The State Of Telangana,

2020-11-03Challa Kodanda Ram4 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W RI T PETI TI ON No.2 8 0 1 4 of 2 0 1 4 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.6 0 9 an d 7 1 2 9 of 2 0 1 5 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.1 4 1 6 3 an d 2 8 9 7 5 of 2 0 1 6 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.3 6 9 3 1 an d 3 7 0 1 4 of 2 0 1 7 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.4 6 4 8 , 2 4 2 2 6 an d 4 6 3 6 3 of 2 0 1 8 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.1 3 8 4 , 1 5 3 9 , 3 6 3 7 , 3 6 4 2 , 7 9 1 6 , 1 2 2 8 7 , 1 7 2 9 7 , 1 9 8 3 7 , 2 1 2 3 3 , 2 3 1 7 4 , 2 6 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 1 4 , 2 8 2 3 1 , 2 8 9 6 2 an d 2 9 2 0 4 of 2 0 1 9 W RI T PETI TI ON Nos.

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(g) of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012, 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.

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 and W.P.No.46363 of 2018.

Learned Standing Counsel Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, after obtaining instructions from the HMWSSB, filed a Memo dated 22.09.2020 before this Court enclosing the proceedings of HMWSSB 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 07.01.2019. 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 Muddana Koteswara Rao, Sri Sravan Kumar and other counsels appearing for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions, and have prayed for

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/ 2018-19/ 793 dated 07.01.2019. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03rd November, 2020 ksm