vide Anne><ure~i< being the biii No.sE337s2:oso e':aE:edf:;'e'."2o'io issued by the second respondent to the petitioner.in'*the.,na.me ofi
M/s. Srinivas Deveiopers, Sai PoornawAparitmevntgf,’i4atiei§on’te
viiiage, Somasandrapaiya, HSR Layout:;E><tension*,__B'ang_atere,_,_ f
This Writ Petition coming on for 'oreiiminary.".iAheari'ng"'.in"B"g
group this day, the Court made t'§1te'<foHowing : V
onofing
Petitioner is the Apatrtgnethrt. It has
quesfioned the putée Anne%dte~iK;is$de§x5y'the Bangakwe
Water Supp?)/V (for short 'BWSSB'},
<"2;G1"§,295/– being the arrears
of sewerage" 'T.he..::re$Dndent–Board have charged
the apartmeVnt_Vowner_s per month per flat as sewerage
on uth'ev….r,.).rder issued by the State Government.
V'Accord–inAg»._t'opetitioners, charging of ?50/~ per month
V from i'ndiviéd'dta¥..e:'fiat owners towards sewerage charges is
s 'iiiegai andkiis in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
wtmayé
2. The State Government has issued an order as per
iv”A..__if:nnexure~’J’ dated 27.12005 fixing the water tariff and
sanitary charges for domestic and non~dornestic connections.
x K”
» er’
arbitrary action taken by the State, couid indeed he ‘§gti’b}€Ct
to scrutiny by the Courts. But Courts wouid no~t~-act__’_aa .._:Va7n
appeiiate authority over determination
Government to fix such price as
rates are fixed having regard: to thA’e D”i;’bHC aim-edges:
inter afia may inciude the””‘i’ri.n.terest rem\/enue,
environment, ecoiogy ar1ci”‘n_eec_i”iio’t:§ and the
requirements of other is neither
the function nor” ‘Vt°i:ou”rt:.fiThe..rnechanism of price
fixation is the and the Court will not
generaiiyhre?e\raiuate:thie’considiewriaitions. The respondents
are the e’xoerts This Court cannot act as an
Appeilate Aut4’h’or:ity-for sutistituting its opinion in the matter
‘of. tariff. ‘ih’e”‘Constitutionai Bench of the Supreme
‘€:odr_t in casefiof S.NARAYAN IYER —-vs- THE UNION or
;ND1/§__V(AiZ’.’~2–:1:§i?6 SC 1986) has ruled that the Courts have
juri’sd__i7:tion under Article 226 to go into the
jreasoniahieness of the rates. The rates are decided as poiicy
“‘–.rna_tter in fiscal oianning. There is iegisiative prescription of
rates! Rates are the matter for iegisiative judgment and not
it/”
_gu
for judicial determination. Even otherwise, this.p..C;3uti’ts:4″§iees
not find any iiiegaiity in fixing the rate at it
?50/– per fiat.
5. Sri 8.MtBaiiga further. submits’ entirea’
buiiciirig consisting of flats shafii:_be__treatediynasene singie
premises and €300/– -charged towards
sanitary charges.=_ cannot be
accepted. It .the:”5uiiding is having 96
flats. sewerage. Hence, the
owner of have to pay the sewerage
charges in’dsepeVnden’t!.Vy.»- stretch of imagination, the
_ entire4_§b”uie!.ding “cannot be treated as one premises for the
purpose _otAscha’a¢ging sanitary charges.
V_Sri’1-.V_.’3}:.M.Baiiga, learned counsei reiies upon the
Vii”«.,.,p}udgment”Lot this Court in the case of B.W.S.S.B. -vs-
“e;4MgikRIsHNA AITHAL (rue 1986 KAR. 4’88) to contend
the action of the respondents is vioiative of Articie 14 of
__the Constitution of India; The aforementioned decisien is
totaiiy inappiicabie to the facts of this case. In the said
-§{)._
judgment, the question invoived was the simiiarity ef tariff
fixed for domestic and non–domesi:ic premises! _4…Viin_:i:.hat
context, it has been held that the charges
same towards domestic and non-ciompestic p’r’ein–is’_esL”-. In i:he””
matter on hand, we are not c0nce4rnede..§vith._ ii.<ji*:–d"o:m.esi¥iic
premisesi This Court is c:5n'cerned~._c$r:ly =vy'i'tAhu.dQnriesti”families. Each flat
is getting water from each flat is
discharging jfi’hefe’fere, each flat will
have to pay individually.
In {:_iew_o1fthe.”abé>v_e;—.g;j’e.tition fails and accordingly the
same standsldismiseedi
Safe
JEZQ GE
A’ _11″‘l~7iz;i§/nic