V.Raju S/O Sri Velumayil vs V.Saroja W/O Sri S Sundaram on 2 March, 2010

W.P.NO.2I3/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF' MARCH 2010 . '  Q

BEFORE

THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAK'1iH_AVAV*1V'SAi.ga    

WRIT PETITION No.213/2016' (GMT.-..(31:>C3._V  
BETWEEN: VV V

1. Sn'.V.Ra3'u
S/o.1ate Sri.Ve1umayi1,
Aged about 43 years,

2. Smt.V.Jayamma,   'V
W/0.late Sri.Ve1uma:yfi1,-._  V    .
Aged about 76 yeajfs,  V _   V   V' 

Bothr/a.No.182, 2 ;  

Ground Floor, _2.3i'F' _CV1*Qss;"V::;_  "

6"' Block, Jayzmagaifi-V.L'V_V    _--
Bangalore«~5603._O82.V .   ' ...PET1I'DNERS

[By Sri. Srinivas ariiufthy.  _ J} V V 

1. VS~t.VV,VSa12TVcVV>ja,_v _  
W / 'o_ _. S1fi,_S'.   ,
Aged ab'0_ut 4"FVy<e_a1~,3','

V VV "»..,»R/a.No'. 182, I_F1VoQ;', 23rd Cross,

6"? Block} J ayanagar,

.   . Béalzgaiorewfi-$0. 082.

AV $0:

_VV'S_m£'V,V;S:.1ndara Kantha,
V W/o.S_ri;L';Dorai Raj,

 VV.Vf=AgeVd about 55 years,

V RV/a;»N0.52, 10$" Cross, Bendre Nagar.

V V  .}3a;1ga1ore--56o 070.



W.P.NO.213/2010

3. Smt.V.Pushpa.

W / 0.Sri.Singaram.
R/a.Selvam Sound Service,
Pettavathalai Main Road,
Timchirapalli,

Tamil Nadu.

4. Smt.V.Thangaman1,   ~
W/olate C.Chinr1adurai, I
Aged about 51 years,

R/a.No.47,

11 Floor, 25th Cross,
691 Block, Jayanagar,
Banga1ore--56O 082.

5. Smt.V.Kama1a,
W/0.M.Venkatesh.
Aged about 39 years.,*- V I    . 
R/a.N0.91, 7*" CrQss','~._ _*  1:   " 
Bhavan1Nagar,    . ~. 3   

BSK 11 Stage,  '  V 
Bangalore--560  1I;___ 3 '

6. Smt.V.Vijayala.'Kshmi;' .f~ ' ». _

W/0.Sri.P.GunVasheka.r.'  '-

Aged about 35 "yea1's, ._ .~
R/ a.No. 51, Ramaehandfapuram
Next to St{1bramanya" Kovilfl _St,ree1:,

I-VBai1ga1()re?~560 (}'21.

7. Ba12,ga3.gfe  'sgpply &
Sewerage,B0a1"dj,-- _ V'; V

4 « __ V .CauVe1'yf_'BhaVvanL'.  G.Ro ad,

Bangalore--5t3O 009,

 : .Rep.., by its "Chief Adminsitrative
.V 'L')f'iV"i::xe1' egm Secretary. ...RESPON)ENTS

' '   Kufixaraveiu, Adv. for R-- 1 ,

'   S1"i.§Kesha'va Murthy, Adv, for R-7,
~ 'R~'~:2. to 6 ~-- notice dispensed with)



W.P.NO.2l3/2010

plaintiff/Respondent No.1 shall not prejudice the case of the

petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent .

that if the Respondent No.1 were to makeflan application ‘seeking ”

water connection, BWSSB would consider take. Vnecesrsa1’3r_’

action.

6. The petitioners are directed t¢”ifu._ifri:s;h the -reqiiirelel papers
{Tax Paid Receipt) to the plaintiff so fornew water
connection. Accordingly, the It is made

clear that if the Respondeiit /?p1aintif:f1ii’alr.e.sl an application to

the BWSSB ~coi2.necti’on, it shall consider the
application without” insistilnig ‘prodfiiction of plan, Katha extract.

sd/~
EUDGE

2 pbnv*