[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jain International Residential School vs State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 22615 OF 2016 (GM-BWSSB)
BETWEEN
JAIN INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
THE JGI GROUP
JAN GLOBAL CAMPUS
JAKKASANDRA POST
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-56212
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
DIRECTOR PROJECTS & FACILITIES
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
RAGHAVENDRA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009
REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER(M)
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.2, CAUVERY HEAD WORKS SUB DIVISIN
BWSSB, HAROHALLI-562112
KANAKAPURA TALUK
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA A/W
SRI. BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAVI B. NAIK., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIAE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT
LIABLE TO PAY 'PRO-RATE' CHARGES AS DEMANDED BY THE
RESPONDENTS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2026, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
1) Declare that the Petitioner is not liable to pay 'pro-
rata' charges as demanded by the Respondents;
2) Quash the communication dated 18.02.2016 bearing
No.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)-III/DCE(M)-I/TA(M)-III
14483/15-16 (Annexure P);
3) Quash the communication dated 2.4.2016 bearing
No. BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/ACE(M)-III/DCE(M)-1/TA(M)-
10/83/2015-16 (Annexure Q):
4) Direct the Respondents to refund to the Petitioner Rs
1,01,91,510/-, being the excess tariff collected:
5) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner is an educational institution
established by the Sri. Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
Educational and Cultural Trust, which runs various
Educational and Charitable Institutions. The said
trust has established and runs various educational
institutions in different parts of the country and has
established five institutions in Kanakapura Taluk viz.,
i. Jain Vidyanikethan, which is a State Board
School;
ii. Jain Public School which imparts CBSE syllabus;
iii. Jain College which is a Pre-University and
Degree College;
iv. Jain University Global Campus; and
v. Jain International Residential School.
3. It is claimed that there are 3000 local students
pursuing studies in these institutions, and the
remaining have come from various parts of the
country, as well as from diverse backgrounds. It is
further claimed that the said campus provides
employment for more than 2500 local residents.
4. The Petitioner, Jain International Residential School,
was established in the year 1999. At the time of
establishment, it was utilising water from
underground borewells to meet the needs of the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
school. Since the said water was not fit for human
consumption, causing severe skin problems, allergies
etc., a representation has been made to respondent
No.2 on 19.05.2003, requesting for 9 lakh litres of
water to be supplied to the school at a concessional
rate from Harohalli Pumping Station in Kanakapura
Taluk, and a feasibility report has already been
submitted.
5. On 12.06.2003, the Petitioner addressed yet another
letter to respondent No.2, bringing to its notice that
over a thousand children and staff are on the
campus, requiring potable water, as the PPM levels in
the water from the borewells were alarmingly high.
On 21.02.2004, the Government of Karnataka was
pleased to issue a Government Order sanctioning the
supply of 9 lakh litres of water per day at an
estimated cost of Rs.93 lakhs to be deposited for
carrying out the works. The Petitioner, having
received a request from the Executive Engineer,
Cauvery Head Works Division, to remit the aforesaid
sum, remitted the same on 19.02.2004.
6. On 06.05.2004, an agreement came to be executed
between the petitioner and respondent No.2, as per
which respondent No.2 was to provide water supply
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
facility to the Petitioner by developing the
infrastructure for the same in furtherance of the
aforesaid payment. In terms of the said agreement,
respondent No.2 was to supply 9 lakh litres of water
per day. The water being supplied, the Petitioner has
also been making payment of the due amounts as
regards the water supply.
7. In the month of January 2013, a water bill was
received by the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.60/Kilo
Litre instead of Rs.36/Kilo Litre, hence the Petitioner
addressed a letter on 08.02.2013 informing the
respondent of the error. In furtherance of which, the
Petitioner had received a communication dated
12.02.2013 addressed by respondent No.3 to EECH,
T.K.Hally requesting it to revise the tariff for water
supplied. On 18.02.2013, the Petitioner once again
wrote a letter to the respondent seeking
reconsideration of the rate. However, no action was
taken. The contention of the Petitioner is that instead
of reconsidering the request, a letter dated
28.01.2014 was issued calling upon the Petitioner to
pay pro-rata charges on water supplied to the
Petitioner, and in that background, a request was
made to allow the staff of the BWSSB to take
appropriate measurements of the campus.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
8. The Petitioner on 05.02.2014 requested
reconsideration of the rates and also exemption from
payment of pro-rata charges. In the meanwhile, a
notification came to be issued on 01.11.2014 revising
the water and sanitary tariff applicable with effect
from 02.11.2014 as per which the Petitioner was to
pay Rs.60/KL from 02.11.2014 and, hence, it is the
contention of the Petitioner that any charges paid by
the Petitioner prior to 02.11.2014 were not
authorised, and these amounts were liable for
refund, amounting to Rs.1,01,91,510/-.
9. A letter was issued on 02.02.2015 by the Assistant
Executive Engineer informing the Petitioner that
there is a rule in the BWSSB Rule under Section of
the BWSS Act, 1964 to levy pro-rata charges on each
connection of water supply from BWSSB.
Accordingly, instructions have been received from
the higher authority to levy pro-rata charges on
water supply to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner was
called upon to provide drawings, a sale deed,
building photos, and a rainwater harvesting system
on which basis actual pro-rata charges would be
informed.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
10. On 27.02.2015, the Petitioner wrote to the
respondent No.2 seeking enhancement of the
sanction of water from 9 lakh litres per day to 15
lakh litres per day and again sought exemption from
the levy of pro-rata charges. Respondent No.3
thereafter addressed a communication on
22.12.2015, again, calling upon the Petitioner to
submit the documents. The Petitioner once again, on
26.12.2015, sought an exemption. In that view of
the matter, the respondent proceeded to issue an
order dated 18.02.2016, calling upon the Petitioner
to pay pro-rata charges of Rs.4,32,64,474/- within
30 days on the ground that, when the water
connection had been issued to the Petitioner, pro-
rata charges were not collected.
11. Apart from that, in terms of Regulation 5.3 and
Section 16 of the BWSS Act, Additional pro-rata
charges for the past period amounting to
Rs.8,64,27,448/- were directed to be paid, failing
which it was indicated that supply of water would be
stopped.
12. The Petitioner, relying on the customer charter web
hosted on BWSSB's website, sought to contend that
the levy of pro-rata charges was at the commercial
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
rate, when, in fact, there is a separate classification
for educational purposes, and it is at that rate that it
ought to have been levied.
13. The Petitioner further informed the respondents that
it is only the water connection which had been
provided to the Petitioner, there being no sanitary
connection provided, the levy of pro-rata charges for
both water and sanitary connection is impermissible.
This request not having been accepted, the Petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the above writ
petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
14. Sri.S.Sriranga, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, would submit that;
14.1. The BWSS Act and Regulations do not apply to
the supply of water to the Petitioner's
institution. The BWSS Act applies only to the
provision of Water supply, sewerage and
Sewage Disposal in the Bangalore Metropolitan
Area. He refers to Regulation 54 of the
Bangalore Water Supply Regulations, 1965 (for
brevity referred to as the "Regulations") which
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
54. Water supply outside city limits.-In cases in
which water supply is made to houses, premises,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
industrial concerns, etc., outside the limits of
Bangalore City, these regulations shall apply mutatis
mutandis except where such supply is controlled by
a separate agreement with the Board.
14.2. By referring to Regulation 54, his submission is
that though water supply is made to houses,
premises, and industrial concerns outside the
limits of the Bangalore city, they would be
governed by the Regulations. However, if there
is a separate agreement, it is a separate
agreement that should be applicable.
14.3. On that basis, he submits that the Petitioner's
education institution located in Jakkasandra
Post, Kanakpura Taluk, Ramnagara District is
outside the limits of respondent No.2 and it is
in that background that respondent No.2
sought permission from respondent No.1-State
for the supply of water, which was so accorded,
on which basis an agreement came to be
entered into. Thus, it is the agreement between
the petitioner and respondent No.2, which
should govern the relationship between them
and not the regulations.
14.4. He further submits that this is also the case,
since the Petitioner is situated outside the
jurisdiction of BWSSB and, as such, the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
agreement between the parties, which does not
mention any pro-rata charges, requires none to
be paid by the Petitioner.
14.5. His submission is that normally, for providing
any water or sewerage connection, the capital
cost of laying a pipe, etc., is incurred by the
BWSSB. In the present case, the Petitioner has
incurred a cost of Rs. 93 lakhs for the laying of
pipes up to the educational institution. Thus, no
expenses have been borne by the respondent
for the connection, all the expenses have been
borne by the Petitioner. A further pro-rata
charge could not be levied on the Petitioner. In
this regard, he relies on Section 2 (17) (a) of
the BWSS Act, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference.
2(17)(a) "Pro rata charges" means
proportionate charges towards cost of improvement
of water supply and sewerage systems levied by the
Board from time to time payable by owner or
occupier or developer of any building
14.6. By relying on Section 2(17)(a), he submits that
pro-rata charges would mean proportionate
charges towards the cost of improvement of the
water supply and sewerage system levied by
the Board from time to time.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.7. His submission is that there is no improvement
of water supply or sewerage system made,
inasmuch as the cost of the entire pipeline has
been paid by the Petitioner, and thereafter
there is no improvement. The levy of pro-rata
charges is also not proper inasmuch as the levy
was made as per charges toward multi-storied
buildings and commercial buildings, and not for
education purposes. Thereafter, by order dated
23.04.1990, increased the pro-rata charges and
a further increase was made on 30.07.1992 as
per Commercial buildings.
14.8. By order dated 22.07.1995, the pro-rata
charges were revised from Rs.6 to Rs.80 in
respect of commercial buildings, from Rs.80 to
Rs.120 for commercial buildings on 31.12.1999
and further to Rs.300/- for commercial building
by order dated 13.02.2008.
14.9. His submission is that pro-rata charges would
be liable to be paid only at the time of
connection being made available, not
thereafter. The pro-rata charges cannot be
levied from time to time at incremental levels,
since there is a one-time capital cost involved.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.10. It is only in the year 2013 that by notification
dated 23.05.2013, an amendment was caused
to the BWSS Act and regulations by inserting
Regulation 5.3. The said Regulation 5.3 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
5.3 . The owner, lessee or occupier, who desires to have
a water supply connection shall pay to the Board, the
pro rata charges, as per Section 16 of the Act, at the
rates specified in the table below subject to other
conditions specified in this clause.-
TABLE
SI. Nature of Buildings Rate of pro-rate
No. charges on total
built-up area.
1. Residential building Rs. 250/- per sq.
mtrs.
2. Multistoried building or Rs. 400/- per sq.
Residential Apartment or mtrs.
Group Housing or Villas etc.
3. All types of Non-residential Rs. 600/- per sq.
and Commercial building mtrs.
Provided that this clause shall not apply to a owner or
occupier or lessee who has already paid pro rata
charges under Regulation 2(d) of the Bangalore
Sewerage Regulations, 1974.
(a) In case of water supply connections for multistoried
residential buildings of ground + two floors and above
pro rata charges at the rates prescribed by the Board
from time to time on the total built up area of each floor
of the building constructed.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
(b) In case of premises built for commercial purposes
pro rata charges, at the rate prescribed by the Board
from time to time for the total built up area of each
floor of the building constructed.
(c) In case of service connections of 100 mm dia and
above, in accordance with Regulation 5.3(a) or 5.3(d)
as the case may be the actual cost involved for the
work executed from branch point upto meter point shall
also be paid as per the estimate prepared for the
purpose.
(d) In case of residential buildings having sital area of
108 sq. mtrs. and above] with sanctioned plan for
Ground + Two floors, where only staircase room with
small passage is provided in the second floor pro rata
charges shall not be collected. However, if any living
accommodation is provided in the second floor pro rata
charges shall be collected for the same building.
(e) In case of buildings with sanctioned plan for three or
more floors, constructed partly pro rata charges shall be
collected for the constructed portion only and an
undertaking to the effect that the additional pro rata
charges shall be paid when an additional construction is
taken up shall be taken from the owner, lessee or
occupier.
(f) In case of Commercial buildings, if the construction
is taken partly against the sanctioned plan, then pro
rata charges shall be collected for the constructed area
only and an undertaking shall be obtained from the
owner, lessee or occupier to the effect that the
additional pro rata charges shall be paid by the owner,
lessee or occupier when additional connection is taken
up.
(g) In case of additional constructions over the existing
buildings, cons pro rata charges shall be collected only
for the additional constructed area.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
(h) In case of existing multistoried buildings/residential
buildings having [15mm or 20 mm] water supply
connection(s), if higher size connections are requested
for, pro rata charges shall be collected for the entire
building, if not already collected earlier.
(i) In case of existing buildings with non-domestic
connections, if additional area is constructed, pro rata
charges shall be collected only for the additional
constructed area.
(j) In case of three and more houses are constructed on
a site measuring 108 sq. mtrs. and above the entire
building attracts pro-rate charges at the rates applicable
to Multistoried residential apartments.
14.11. By referring to Regulation 5.3, he submits that
the owner, lessee or occupier who desires to
have a water supply connection shall pay
BWSSB Board the pro-rata charges. These
charges, he submits, were challenged before
this Court in B.Anantharam -v- Bangalore
Water Supply1 and this Court vide order dated
16.03.2000 dismissed the writ petition
upholding the levy of pro-rata charges by
Respondent No.2. Appeals having been filed,
vide order dated 02.07.2004 in
Sri.Muniswamy -vs-Bangalore Water
Supply & Sewerage Board2 those appeals
1
WP No.26084 of 1995 & contd.
2
WA No.3657 of 2000 & contd.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
also came to be dismissed. He refers to the
order dated 21.04.2023 in The Chairman -v-
Sri.B.Venkatesh3, more particularly para
Nos.35, 36 and 37 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
35. It is not in dispute that in this case, the Board
fundamentally relied upon the decision of the Board taken
on 22.07.1995. In this Board's resolution, the Board has
categorically stated as follows:
"This prorata is a one-time payment which is collected from
the owner/lessee/occupier based on the area of
construction. This is mainly to improve the water supply
and underground drainage facilities at a later date as per
provisions of the BWSS Act."
36. As could be seen from the above passage, pro-rata
charges are fundamentally collected as a one-time payment
from the owner on the construction that has been put up
and these charges collected are to ensure improvement of
water supply and underground drainage facilities at a later
date. In my view, having regard to the clear wording of the
resolution, this particular resolution can only be applicable
to a new construction. This is because, if a new construction
is put up, necessarily, the Board would have to incur
expenditure at a later point of time for improvement of
water supply and underground drainage facilities and thus
as a fund-raising measure for future works, the Board was
collecting pro-rata charges from every person who had
constructed a new structure.
37. However, if a house or a structure was already existing,
the question of applying pro-rata charges would not arise
since that house already had a water and sewerage
connection and no expenditure would be required to service
that structure. It should be noted here that the charges are
a one-time payment and are to be collected when the
construction is put up. In cases where construction has
3
RFA 1851/2007
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
already been made way back in the year 1978, obviously
the Board cannot demand and collect pro-rata charges on
the assumption that it is a new construction. It is to be
emphasised here that pro-rata charges are applicable, even
according to the resolution of the Board, only in respect of
new construction with the ultimate objective of providing
water supply and underground drainage facilities at later
stage.
14.12. By referring to B. Venkatesh case, he submits
that in that case the Court was considering the
challenge to the demand of levy of pro-rata
charges on building existing prior to 1998,
when it was held that pro-rata charges are a
one-time payment collected from the owner
and the construction that has been put up so as
to ensure improvement of water supply.
14.13. His submission is that it has been categorically
stated that pro-rata charges are a one-time
payment, these revisions, which have been
made from time to time, would not be
applicable to the Petitioner. It is only the
charges, if at all, as on the date on which the
connection was furnished to the Petitioner,
which would have been applicable if the BWSSB
had borne the charges of providing the
connection. Insofar as the Petitioner is
concerned, the Petitioner having incurred a cost
of Rs.93 lakhs towards the construction of the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
water supply line, the entire cost having been
borne by the Petitioner, no pro-rata charges are
liable to be paid by the Petitioner. The pro-rata
charges, at the most, could be for laying of
lines for the improvement of the water supply.
The Petitioner, having incurred the entire cost,
no laying of line was required insofar as the
Petitioner is concerned.
14.14. His submission is that even the levy is bad in
law since the levy has been made by
considering the construction of the petitioners
to be a commercial building, although the
Petitioner is an educational institution and a
bulk consumer. The Petitioner, being an
educational institution, is not in dispute that the
water supply was requested for the benefit of
the students and staff, which the respondents
are very well aware of, the demand now made
for commercial purposes cannot be sustained.
14.15. The customer charter, which has been
downloaded from the website of the BWSSB,
specifically lists the pro-rata charges applicable
to different buildings, with a separate
classification for educational institutions. If at
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
all, a demand ought to have been made in
respect of that separate classification and not
the general classification for commercial
buildings. In that background, he submits that
the impugned notices have been issued without
application of mind and only to harass the
Petitioner, who is carrying on a lawful business.
14.16. His submission is also that the pro-rata charges
do not distinguish between water and sanitary
connections, and as such, the charges are
required to be paid only when both water and
sanitary connections are made available.
14.17. Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, there is
only a water connection which has been made
available; there is no sanitary connection which
has been made available, nor can it be made
available to the Petitioner since no such lines
exist. In fact, the waterlines were also not in
existence for which the Petitioner has incurred
charges and it is only on account of the
waterline laid by the Petitioner that water has
been supplied to the Petitioner, sanitary
connection incapable of being provided, it is not
permissible for the respondents to levy pro-rata
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
charges on the Petitioner which does not
distinguish between water and sanitary
connection. It was but required for the
respondents to bifurcate the pro-rata charges
for water and sanitary connection separately
and then levy pro-rata charges on the
Petitioner insofar as, water connection is
concerned. The demand notices levying a
common pro-rata charge without providing a
sanitary connection or in this case, without the
respondent No.2 being capable of providing a
sanitary connection, only indicate that the
demand notices are issued without application
of mind, in an arbitrary manner and hence are
required to be quashed.
14.18. His submission again is that the Petitioner is a
bulk consumer, which is a distinct and separate
category and so recognised by a notification
issued by respondent No.2. The bulk consumer
does not make payment of charges by
consumption but makes payment of charges by
allocation. Initially, the allocation being nine
lakh litres, the Petitioner made payment for
nine lakh litres per day as a bulk consumer.
Subsequently, there being an increase in the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
allocation, the increase rate has been paid. His
submission is that irrespective of the increase
in construction or any other developments, the
water to be supplied under the agreement to
the Petitioner does not increase, and therefore,
the regulations do not apply to a bulk
consumer.
14.19. He submits that the initial rate of supply being
Rs.30 per Kilo Litre, same as increased
unilaterally to Rs.60 per Kilo Litre, which has
been paid from 2011-2014, which has been
paid, however, that increase was not authorised
until 2.11.2014 and as such, any payments
made until 2.11.2014 would be required to be
refunded or adjusted towards future water bills
of the Petitioner, amounting to
Rs.1,01,91,510/- which also has not been done
by the respondents.
14.20. Alternatively, he submits that if the Petitioner is
liable to pay pro-rata charges then such pro
rata charges is required to be paid as per the
charges applicable when water supply was
made that is in the year 2004 and in this
regard, he relies upon the, decision of this
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
Court in IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. v.
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage
Board4, more particularly para No.11 and 12
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference;
11. Though the provision contained in Ss. 31 and 61
of the Act are assailed, the said provisions are to
enable for the water to be supplied and to provide for
regulations regarding water supply. The same is not
shown to be ultra vires so as to call for interference.
The contention of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner is also that the quantum of prorata charges
as imposed is also not justified. The circular at
Annexure P is relied to contend that the prorata
charge provided therein for commercial building is at
Rs 120 per sq m for water supply as well as sanitary
connection. The circular dated 13-2-2008 at
Annexure Q is referred to point out that the rate of
Rs 300 per sq m is with effect from that date. In that
view, it is contended that since the Petitioner had
applied on 19-6-2007 seeking water and sanitary
connection, the rate of prorata charge which applied
on that date should have been charged.
12. The said contention on consideration cannot be
accepted by this Court. This is for the reason that
though the application was made on 19-6-2007, in
the instant case it cannot be considered as a file
received on that date to be treated as received prior
to 1-2-2008 as provided in the circular dated 13-2-
2008. As on the date of application the occupancy
certificate was not enclosed but the Petitioner insisted
on having completed the construction and occupied
due to which inspection was conducted on 19-11-
2008 during which time the discrepancies were
noticed and the demand was raised on 27-11-2008.
That being the position, the prorata charges
applicable subsequent to 1-2-2008 will be applicable
4
2017 SCC Online Kar. 4934
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
to the case of the Petitioner. Hence, no grievance in
that regard can be entertained.
14.21. By relying on IBC case, his submission is that
the rate applicable as on the date of the
application for water connection is what is
required to be levied as pro-rata charges and
not the subsequent increases and he submits
that the water supply connection having been
secured in the year 2004, the pro-rata charges
payable as per the rates applicable in the year
2004 would be liable to be paid by the
Petitioner and not any subsequent increase.
14.22. On these grounds, he submits that the writ
petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs
granted.
15. Sri.Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior counsel appearing for
respondents No.2 and 3 submits that;
15.1. The Petitioner has an alternative efficacious
remedy under Section 120 and 121 of the
BWSS Act, 1964. The said Section 120 and 121
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
120. Appeals.--Any person aggrieved by any decision or
order of the Water Supply Engineer or the Sanitary Engineer
or other officer under this Act or any rule or regulation made
thereunder may within a period of sixty days from the date
of such decision or order appeal to the authority prescribed
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
by the regulations and subject to revision by the Board, the
orders of the appellate authority on such appeal shall be
final.
121. Revision.--The Board may call for the records of any
proceedings of any officer subordinate to it for the purpose
of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order
or proceeding and may pass such order with respect thereto
as it thinks fit.
15.2. Without prejudice to the contention of
maintainability, it is contended that BWSSB is a
statutory Body constituted under enactment
and is discharging its duties of supplying water
to the entire city of Bengaluru, which is
regarded as one of the essential services. The
BWSSB is not a profit-making organisation;
instead, it is a service-oriented organisation
working for public welfare. If funds are not
made available to the BWSSB, it would not be
in a position to discharge its duties and
obligations, thus putting the entire population
of Bengaluru at risk of not getting water.
15.3. His submission is that 7 CMCs, 1 TMC and 110
villages were amalgamated with the Bengaluru
city, which resulted in the formation of Greater
Bengaluru in the year 2008. Prior to that
amalgamation, the TMCs and CMCs used to
provide water supply to their respective
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
regions, including the villages within their
jurisdiction. With the formation of Greater
Bengaluru, the responsibility is now on BWSSB
to supply water and maintain the sewer lines
i.e., the responsibilities of TMCs and CMCs have
now been merged with the responsibility of the
BWSSB. The BWSSB has set up several sewer
treatment plants and is in the process of setting
up many more such plants to cater to these
requirements and accordingly, Kaveri Water
Supply Scheme 4th Stage, Phase-II was
undertaken. With an increase in urbanisation,
the pressure for the supply of water to urban
areas, as well as sanitation systems, has
increased, requiring huge capital expenses to
be borne by BWSSB. It is in that background
that pro-rata charges were levied. As regard
the increase in demand, he submits the
following details;
01 Total Extent of BMP before inclusion 226 Sq. Km.
of the CMC 1 TMC and 110 villages
areas in Sq. Km.
02 Total extent of BBMP after inclusion 800 Sq.km.
of the 7 CMCs, 1 TMC and 110
villages areas in Sq. Km.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
03 Total number of population in 65,00,000/-
BBMP before inclusion of CMC areas (Approximate)
04 Total number of population in BBMP 80,00,000
after inclusion of CMC areas
(including 110 Villages) (Approximate)
05 Total houses BMP before inclusion 8,12,500
of CMC
(Approximate)
06 Total Houses in BBMP after 12,63,250(App
inclusion of CMC areas (including roximate)
110 villages
07 Number of connections which 509615 Nos
existed in BMP area before inclusion
CMC areas. water of
08 Number of connections which water 641383 Nos.
existing in BBMP area after
inclusion of CMC areas (including
110 Villages)
09 Total incurred expenditure by the Rs. 1437.00
BWSSB for carrying out water net Crores
work in the newly added areas. Programmed
(including 110 Villages)
Rs. 455.13
Crores Works
executed.
10 Details of the works carried out. Providing 100
mm dia. To
450 mm dia.
D1 water
supply pipe
line net work
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
for distributing
and 600 to
1320 mm dia.
D1/MS feeder
pipe lines.
The rapid growth in the surrounding area demands
improvements in urban infrastructure like Water
supply, Sewerage system and road net working etc.,
The three important requirements which is the need of
the hour to be met by BWSSB are;
a. Water Supply.
b. Sewage System.
c. Road Restoration.
a. Water Supply: The proposed Water supply
system for 110 villages covers an area of about
225.22 sq. kms. The following table shows the water
demand for 110 villages.
i. Total Zones: 5 Zones.
ii. No. of Villages : 110 villages.
iii. Year Population Water Demand (in MLD)
2011 473623 71.0
2021 727120 109.1
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
2031 1102469 165.4
2041 16831924 244.8
b . SEWAGE SYSTEM: There is no comprehensive
sewage system existing in 110 villages. Septic tanks
and soak pits are in use and some residents are
draining their sullage water and sewage directly to the
open drain. The sewage system in new areas is
planned to cover an area of around 519 sq. kms. The
sewage generated in these sewerage zones should be
suitably collected and disposed to respective STP's for
treatment.
C. ROAD RESTORATION: The water supply and
underground draining works involve cutting of
bituminous road, WBM roads, concrete roads and
murram/gravel roads etc., The roads damaged are
proposed for restoration of their original state and
condition including restoration of damaged drains to
avoid inconvenience for public. A huge sum of amount
is required for road restoration.
7. It is submitted that the imposing of the Beneficiary
Capital Contribution and NOC charges are the policy
decision of the State for providing better facilities to
the citizens especially the supply of water and good
drainage system which are regarded as essential
services. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajhai
Kumar V/s. State of U.P. has held that, "Wisdom and
advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not
amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to
economic issued the Government has while taking a
decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial
and error are bona fide and within the limits of the
authority. For testing the correctness of a Policy, the
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts."
Hence, if the said principle is applied, the Petition filed
by the Petitioner is liable to be rejected within
exemplary costs.
8. It is submitted that during the last two decades the
city of Bengaluru has been experiencing
unprecedented growth in the field of Industry,
Commerce and Institutional Sectors. This phenomenal
growth has resulted in unplanned urban activities
surrounding Bengaluru and increase in population and
construction activities. The population of city of
Bengaluru which was 4.08 million in 1991 and 5.8
million in 2001 has. increased to 8.0 million pressure
on infrastructure especially on water supply and
underground drainage system. The Government of by
2011 posing tremendous Karnataka in order to ensure
an integrated development of these areas have
formed a single local body for Greater Bengaluru area
through notification dated Bruhat Bengaluru
16.01.2007. The new entity is Mahanagar Palike
(BBMP) which covers an area of about 800.20 sq.
kms.
15.4. He submits that during the last two decades,
the city of Bengaluru has experienced
unprecedented growth in the field of industry,
commerce and the institutional sector. The
population of Bengaluru has also grown from
4.08 million in 1991 and 5.8 million in 2001 to
8 million in 2011 and thereafter, to an unofficial
estimate of nearly around 15 million now. The
erstwhile BBMP and thus, the BWSSB were
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
required to cater to an area of about 800.20
square kilometres, requiring huge capital
expenses. The rapid growth in the surrounding
areas requires urban infrastructure like water
supply and sewerage system, it is the BWSSB
that deals with these core requirements from
and out of the finances pooled from the
Government of India, Government of Karnataka
and the payments made by the consumers. He
relies on Section 16 of the BWSS Act, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
16. General principles for Board's finance.-- (1) For
carrying on its operations under this Act, the Board shall
levy rates, fees, rentals, prorata charges, deposits, taxes,
and other charges and shall vary such rates, fees, rentals,
prorate charges, deposits, taxes and other charges from
time to time in order to provide sufficient revenue,-
(a) to cover operating expenses, taxes, interest payments
and to provide for adequate maintenance and depreciation,
contribution to pension fund including all expenses incurred
during the year;
(b) to meet repayment of loans and other borrowings;
(c) to finance year to year improvement; and
(d) to provide for such other purposes beneficial to the
promotion of water supply and disposal of sewage in the
Bangalore Metropolitan area as the Board may determine.
(2) No part of the revenues of the Board, after meeting the
expenses referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-
section (1) shall be used to augment the reserves of the
Board other than the reserves referred to in sections 24 and
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
24-A or for the general purposes of the Board including
expenses in connection with capital works, other than
improvement works.
15.5. By relying on Section 16, his submission is that
the said provision empowers the Board to levy
such writs, fees, pro-rata charges, deposit
taxes and other charges for carrying on its
operation under the BWSS Act. Pro-rata
charges being one of the items covered under
Section 16, the BWSSB, therefore, is entitled to
and empowered to levy such charges.
15.6. He refers to Section 31, 61 and 88 of the BWSS
Act, which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
31. Payment to be made for water supplied.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 127 or any
law, contract or other instrument, for all water supplied
under this Act, payment shall be made at such rates, at
such times and under such conditions as may be specified
by regulations, and different rates may be prescribed for
supply of water for different purposes.
Provided that where an arrangement has been entered into
with the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the
provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976,
water shall be supplied by the Board in accordance with
such arrangement to the inhabitants of the City.
61. Regulations regarding water supply.--(1) The
Board may, with the previous approval of the State
Government, make regulations to carry out the purposes of
this Chapter.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing provisions, such regulations may provide
for,--
(a) the power of the Board,--
(i) to stop the supply of water, whether for domestic
purpose, or not, or for gratuitous use; and
(ii) to prohibit the sale and use of water for the purpose of
business;
(iii) to insist on rain water harvesting system for
conservation of water;
(b) the power of the Board to take charge of private
connections;
(c) the prohibition of fraudulent and unauthorised use of
water and the prohibition of tampering with meters;
(d) the licensing of plumbers and fitters, and for the
compulsory employment of licensed plumbers and fitters.
(3) In making any regulation under this section, the Board
may provide that a breach thereof shall be punishable with
fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and in case
of continuing breach with an additional fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which
the breach continues after the receipt of a notice from the
Board to discontinue such breach.
88. Regulations.--(1) The Board may with the previous
approval of the State Government make regulations not
inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the administration of the funds and other property of
the Board and the maintenance of its accounts;
(b) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Board
and the times and places at which such meetings shall be
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
held, and the conduct of business thereat and the number
of members necessary to constitute a quorum;
(c) the duties of officers and servants of the Board, and
their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service;
(d) the fine which may be imposed for the breach of any
bye-law, which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in
case of continuing breach the additional fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees for every day, during which
the breach continues after receipt of a notice from the
Board to discontinue the breach.
(e) the procedure to be followed by the Board in inviting,
considering and accepting tenders;
(f) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions
under this Act in which it is necessary or expedient to make
regulations.
(2) The power to make regulations under this Act is subject
to the condition of previous publication.
15.7. He also refers to Regulation 5.3 of the
Regulations which is reproduced hereinabove.
15.8. By virtue of the amendments made, pro-rata
charges can now be levied on high-rise
buildings, residential buildings, multi-storied
residential apartments, etc., Different rates of
pro-rata charges have been made applicable to
different classifications. The classification being
reasonable, the said classifications would be
applicable to the Petitioner also.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.9. He refers to Section 89A, inserted in the year
2010, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
89A. Collection of capital contribution from the
beneficiary or borrowing loan etc., in respect of any
project.- In furtherance of implementation of any water
supply and sanitation projects, the State Government may
issue directions to the Board for making funding
arrangements, to collect capital contribution from the
beneficiaries of the project or through any Local Authority
or to borrow loans from funding agencies or to borrow
from the market as per requirements of the projects
15.10. By referring to Section 89A, he submits that
the State Government is empowered to issue
directions to the Board for making funding
arrangements, collect capital contributions
from the beneficiaries of the project, or
through local authority or to borrow loan from
funding agencies. His submission is also that
a Greater Bengaluru Water Supply and
Sewerage Project is under implementation on
account of the formation of Greater Bengaluru
by amalgamation of the Aforesaid CMCs, TMCs
and villages. His submission is that providing
a water and sewage connection does not come
cheap. An amount of Rs.2023/- crores has
been raised from the Government of India.
Complementary support of Rs.178/- crores
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
has been provided by the Government of
Karnataka. BWSSB has provided Rs.178
crores from its own contribution. The balance
is required to be obtained from the consumers
so as to make the services available to them.
15.11. The groundwater table in Bengaluru has
receded and the groundwater has also been
contaminated, so that water cannot be made
use of by digging borewells, which the
Petitioner itself has experienced on account of
the IPPM count making it dangerous for
human consumption. It is for that reason that
a huge amount of money has to be spent by
the State and BWSSB for providing water and
sanitary connections. The Petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands, and
further, the Petitioner has no locusstandi to
file the writ petition. It is also reiterated that
the Petitioner has alternative efficacious
remedy in terms of Section 120 and 121 of
the BWSS Act.
15.12. It is reiterated that the challenges for the
supply of water on account of the formation of
Greater Bangalore, he submits that the
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
introduction of beneficiary capital contribution
is the policy decision of the State, which is not
justiciable. It is submitted that the financial
condition of BWSSB is not sound, the revenue
of the Board has remained stagnant, whereas
the expenditure has increased, both on
account of establishment charges, operation
and maintenance charges, etc. The increased
financial burden to provide increased services
cannot be borne by BWSSB alone. It is
submitted that though initially the amount
required to be paid was Rs.36 per kilo litre, a
minimum monthly charge of Rs.1,29,600/-,
the same was subject to revision from time to
time. Subsequently, it has been revised to
Rs.60 per kilolitre from 12.02.2013, which has
not been challenged by the Petitioner.
Without a challenge being made to the said
revision, the question of the Petitioner
claiming refund would not arise.
15.13. Section 89A, though introduced by Act 32 of
2010 had a retrospective effect from
01.01.2003, which authorised the State
Government to direct the Board to collect
capital contribution for water and sanitation
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
projects. Prior to 13.02.2008, water and
sanitary charges were levied separately.
However, subsequently vide circular dated
01.03.2008, a combined pro-rata charge for
both services has been levied, and the
question of now bifurcating water and sanitary
pro-rata charges would not arise. The
classification by BWSSB is only on two fronts,
namely residential and commercial. There is
no educational classification available under
the law. Since the premises of the Petitioner is
not used for residential purposes, but for
educational purposes, which is a commercial
activity, the building would have to be
considered to be commercial and any levy is
required to be made on a commercial basis.
The extract relied upon by the Petitioner is an
outdated extract, and that classification of
properties as educational is no longer in force.
Merely because such a policy is present on the
website does not give the Petitioner a right to
seek for levy on that basis when the same is
not in force.
15.14. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam and
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
Ors. vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and
Investment Corporation and Anr.5, more
particularly para 26 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
26. Section 56, which is a provision in relation to the
incidence of the tax, provides that the tax mentioned in
Section 52 would be recoverable:
(i) from the occupiers of the premises, in the case of
premises connected with water supply or as the case
may be with the sewer of a Jal Sansthan; and
(ii) from the owner of the premises, in the case of
premises not connected with water supply or the sewer
of the Jal Sansthan.
Section 56 is a clear indicator of the tax being in the
nature of a compulsory exaction arising out of the fact
that the premises comprise of land and building situated
within the area of the Jal Sansthan, so long as the
restrictions which are contained in Section 55 are not
attracted. Section 52 and Section 56 also indicate that the
intention of the legislature is to collect water tax and
sewerage tax from the occupier of the premises, where
the premises are connected with water supply or, as the
case may be, with a sewer of the Jal Sansthan and, in
case where the premises are not so connected, from the
owner of the premises. Therefore, the payment of water
tax and sewerage tax is regardless of whether the
premises are connected with water supply or with a sewer
of the Jal Sansthan. There is no exemption from the
payment of water tax or sewerage tax as both the
contingencies- the premises being connected with water
supply (or, as the case may be, with a sewer of the Jal
Sansthan) or there being no such connection- have been
covered under the provisions of Section 56. So long as a
provision for water supply or a sewerage is made by the
Jal Sansthan in the area covered, the occupier or the
5
AIR online (2021) SC 919
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
owner of the premises is liable to pay the taxes. Both the
water tax as well as the sewerage tax could be
consolidated for the purpose of levying, assessing and
collecting them under Section 57 of the Act.
15.15. By relying on Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam
case, his submission is that the intention of
the legislature is to collect water tax and
sewerage tax from the occupier of the
premises where the premises are connected
with a water supply or, as the case may be,
with the sewer. His submission is that the
payment of water tax and sewerage taxes,
regardless of whether the premises are
connected with a water supply or with sewer,
there is no exemption from payment of water
tax or sewerage tax, as both the
contingencies, whether connection has been
provided or not provided is covered under
Section 16.
15.16. For levy of pro-rata charges, his submission is
that there is no requirement for a water or a
sewerage connection to be provided, so long
as water supply or sewerage is made in the
area covered, the occupier or the owner of the
premises is liable to pay those taxes. Section
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
56 referred to in the above decision is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
56. Liability for payment of taxes.- The taxes
mentioned in Section 52 shall be recoverable-
(a) in the case of premises connected with water
supply or, as the case may be, with the sewer of A
Jal Sansthan, from the occupier of the premises
(b) in the case of premises not so connected, from
the owner of the premises.
15.17. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer vs. The
Union of India and Another6, more
particularly para 6 and 7 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
6. There are three principal reasons why the writ
petition is incompetent and not maintainable and the
appeal should fail. First, when any subscriber to a
telephone enters into a contract with the State, the
subscriber has the option to enter into a contract or not.
If he does so, he has to pay the rates which are charged
by the State for installation. A subscriber cannot say
that the rates are not fair. No one is compelling one to
subscribe. Second, telephone tariff is subordinate
legislation and a legislative process. Under Indian
Telegraph Act, Section 7 empowers the Central
Government to make rules inter alia for rates. These
rules are laid before each House of Parliament. The
rules take effect when they are passed by the
Parliament. Third, the question of rates is first gone into
by the Tariff Enquiry Committee. The committee is
headed by non-officials. The tariff rates are placed
6
(1976) 3 SCC 428
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
before the House in the shape of budget proposals. The
Parliament goes into all the budget proposals. The rates
are sanctioned by the Parliament. The rates, therefore,
become a legislative policy as well as a legislative
process.
7. The courts have no jurisdiction under Article 226 to
go into reasonableness of rates. These rates are decided
as policy matter in fiscal planning. There is legislative
prescription of rates. Rates are a matter for legislative
judgment and not for judicial determination.
15.18. By relying on Narayan Iyer case, his
submission is that once a person has entered
into a contract and avails the service, he
cannot contend that the rates are not fair.
There is no compulsion on the person to avail
of such services. Services being availed, no
grievance can be made on the quantum. The
prescription of rates is a matter of legislative
judgment and not for judicial determination,
as submitted, and as such, he submits that
the Petitioner cannot now seek to bifurcate
water and sanitary connection.
15.19. He relies upon the judgment in Muniswamy's
case, [supra], more particularly the portion
of paragraph 11 thereof, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
11. xxxxx In the face of such data showing such a
correlationship, the levy of pro-rata charges cannot
but be considered to be fee or other charges for the
services rendered by the Board to the residents of
the Bangalore Metropolitan area. The word 'Service'
in the context of a fee could include a compulsory
measure undertaken vis-a-vis the payer in the
interest of the public. This 'coercive' measure has
been subsequently judicially clarified to mean a
regulatory measure'. But in the case of both kinds
of services, whether compulsorily imposed or
voluntarily accepted, there would have to be a
correlation between the levy imposed and quid pro
quo'. xxxxx
15.20. By relying on the Muniswami case, his
submission is that Section 16 of the Act
empowers the Board not only to levy fees and
other charges but also to vary such fees to
provide sufficient revenue to meet expenses.
The levy of such fees and charges is to enable
the Board to discharge its duties under
Section 15, the same cannot be faulted with.
The levy of pro-rata charges, though a
service, would have to be considered to be a
compulsory measure undertaken vis-à-vis the
payer in the interest of the public, since
services are being provided to the
metropolitan area of Bangalore, where the
Petitioner is also a resident.
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.21. His submission is that exercising the powers
conferred and provisions of the BWSS Act and
regulations framed, various notifications have
been issued from time to time, which have
been adverted to by the Petitioner. The
Petitioner not having paid any of the monies,
the Petitioner cannot now contend that it is
only the amount leviable the first time when
services were rendered, that the calculation
has to be made at. The Petitioner, having
taken advantage of not having paid the
monies till now, is also required to make
payment of interest for the late payment and
cannot backdate the calculation.
15.22. There was no water connection to the
Petitioner's premises and in that background
that at the specific request of the Petitioner
that a water connection was provided.
15.23. The pipeline which has been laid is exclusively
for the Petitioner and not for anyone else, as
such, he submits that the Petitioner claiming
that an amount of Rs.93 lakhs has been paid
for laying the pipeline is of no consequence in
as much as without laying the pipeline the
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
Petitioner would not have got water. The levy
of pro-rata charges is not with respect to the
Petitioner, but is a common charge which is
levied for all subscribers and water and
sewerage connections across the greater
Bangalore. It is a common cost that is
required to be paid for providing a proper
water supply in Bangalore.
15.24. He once again reiterates that there is no
educational category and it is only a
commercial category that is applicable to the
Petitioner. As regards the extract at page
No.65 of the writ petition, he submits that it
was uploaded in the year 2005 and is only a
guidance document and does not have
statutory power. It is only for administrative
or information material that cannot override
or supersede the statutory provisions,
regulations, or government notifications.
15.25. His submission by relying on the judgment of
this Court in WP No.20016 of 2021 is that this
Court, having upheld the demand for pro-data
charges by BWSSB, the Petitioner cannot now
argue to the contrary.
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.26. As regard the non-furnishing of sewerage
connection, he relies on the Government
notification dated 19.01.2016 issued by the
Forest Ecology and Environment Secretariat,
mandating that educational institutions with or
without hostel facilities, having a total built-up
area of 5000 square metres and above are
required to install a sewerage treatment plant
and in that regard, he submits that a
sewerage treatment plant having been
established by the Petitioner, there is no
requirement for providing sewerage
connection.
15.27. He refers to the additional application for
additional connection submitted by the
Petitioner for enhancement in water supply
from 08.02.2016, wherein the Petitioner in
Column-C has itself described the premises as
a commercial complex. Thus, he submits that
the Petitioner, having described the premises
as a commercial complex, cannot now seek to
contend that there is a separate classification
for educational purposes.
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.28. He refers to the bill raised by the BESCOM
authority for electricity connection, which has
been provided at a commercial rate and as
such, he submits that when electricity is being
provided at a commercial rate, the Petitioner
cannot contend that water has to be furnished
at a different rate than at what electricity is
paid for by the Petitioner.
15.29. On all the above grounds, he submits that the
Petitioner having received the benefit of the
water connection, is now seeking to not make
payment of the due amounts towards the
water connection as also the pro-rata charges,
which are completely untenable and on that
ground, he submits that the writ petition is
required to be dismissed.
16. Heard Sri.S.Sriranga, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.Boppanna
Belliyappa, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and
Sri.Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior counsel appearing for
respondents No.2 and 3. Perused papers.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
17. Having heard learned Senior Counsel on both sides
and upon examining the statutory scheme of the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964,
the Regulations framed thereunder, the points that
would arise for determination are:
(i) Whether the Petitioner has made out a
case for declaration that it is not liable to
pay "pro-rata charges" as demanded by
the Respondents?
(ii) Whether the communications dated
18.02.2016 and 02.04.2016 demanding
pro-rata charges are liable to be quashed
as being without authority of law, contrary
to the provisions of the Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 and the
Regulations framed thereunder?
(iii) Whether, in the facts of the case, the
Respondents are legally entitled to levy
pro-rata charges upon the Petitioner in
respect of a water connection granted
pursuant to the agreement dated
06.05.2004?
(iv) Whether the levy of pro-rata charges at
the rates applied by the Respondents,
including classification of the Petitioner's
institution for that purpose, is legally
sustainable?
(v) Whether the Respondents are entitled to
levy consolidated pro-rata charges
towards both water and sewerage
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
components in respect of the Petitioner's
premises?
(vi) Whether the demand of pro-rata charges
for the period in question is legally
enforceable, having regard to the time of
grant of connection and subsequent
revisions of rates?
(vii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to
refund or adjustment of Rs.1,01,91,510/-
alleged to have been collected in excess
towards water tariff prior to 02.11.2014?
(viii)What order?
18. I answer the above points as follows:
19. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the Petitioner
has made out a case for declaration that it is
not liable to pay "pro-rata charges" as
demanded by the Respondents?
19.1. Sri. S. Sriranga, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act,
1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "BWSS
Act") and the Regulations framed thereunder do
not apply to the supply of water to the
Petitioner's institution. He contended that the
BWSS Act applies only to the provision of water
supply, sewerage and sewage disposal in the
Bangalore Metropolitan Area. He placed reliance
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
on Regulation 54 of the Bangalore Water
Supply Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Regulations"), which reads as
follows:
"54. Water supply outside city limits.--In
cases in which water supply is made to houses,
premises, industrial concerns, etc., outside the
limits of Bangalore City, these regulations shall
apply mutatis mutandis except where such
supply is controlled by a separate agreement
with the Board."
19.2. By referring to Regulation 54, Sri. S. Sriranga
submitted that though water supply to houses,
premises and industrial concerns outside the
limits of Bangalore City would ordinarily be
governed by the Regulations, the proviso
creates an exception where such supply is
controlled by a separate agreement with the
Board. He submitted that the Petitioner's
educational institution, located in Jakkasandra
Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District,
is outside the limits of Respondent No.2-
BWSSB, and since a separate agreement dated
06.05.2004 was entered into between the
Petitioner and Respondent No.2, it is the
agreement which should exclusively govern
their relationship and not the Regulations.
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
19.3. Sri. S. Sriranga further submitted that in terms
of the agreement, the Petitioner bore the entire
cost of Rs.93 lakhs for laying the pipeline from
Harohalli Pumping Station to the Petitioner's
campus. He contended that pro-rata charges,
by their very definition under Section 2(17)(a)
of the BWSS Act, mean "proportionate charges
towards cost of improvement of water supply
and sewerage systems levied by the Board from
time to time payable by owner or occupier or
developer of any building." Since the Petitioner
bore the entire cost of laying the pipeline and
there was no improvement carried out by
BWSSB, no pro-rata charges can be levied.
19.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that pro-rata charges are a
one-time payment, collected at the time of the
connection being made available. They cannot
be levied from time to time at incremental
levels since it is a one-time capital cost. In
support of this submission, he placed reliance
upon the decision of this Court in RFA
No.1851 of 2007 (B. Venkatesh v. BWSSB),
order dated 21.04.2023, more particularly
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 thereof, wherein this
Court held:
"35. It is not in dispute that in this case, the
Board fundamentally relied upon the decision
of the Board taken on 22.07.1995. In this
Board's resolution, the Board has categorically
stated as follows: 'This prorata is a one-time
payment which is collected from the
owner/lessee/occupier based on the area of
construction. This is mainly to improve the
water supply and underground drainage
facilities at a later date as per provisions of
the BWSS Act.'"
"36. As could be seen from the above
passage, pro-rata charges are fundamentally
collected as a one-time payment from the
owner on the construction that has been put
up and these charges collected are to ensure
improvement of water supply and
underground drainage facilities at a later date.
In my view, having regard to the clear
wording of the resolution, this particular
resolution can only be applicable to a new
construction."
"37. However, if a house or a structure was
already existing, the question of applying pro-
rata charges would not arise since that house
already had a water and sewerage connection
and no expenditure would be required to
service that structure. It should be noted here
that the charges are a one-time payment and
are to be collected when the construction is
put up."
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
19.5. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that since the
Petitioner's institution was already in existence
when the water connection was obtained in
2004, and the entire cost of Rs.93 lakhs was
borne by the Petitioner for laying the pipeline,
no pro-rata charges can be demanded either at
the time of connection or subsequently.
19.6. It was further submitted that even the levy is
bad in law since the demand has been made by
considering the Petitioner's construction to be a
commercial building, whereas the Petitioner is
an educational institution and a bulk consumer.
The customer charter web-hosted on BWSSB's
website specifically lists pro-rata charges
applicable to different categories, including a
separate classification for educational
institutions.
19.7. Sri. S. Sriranga also submitted that the
Petitioner is a bulk consumer, a distinct and
separate category recognised by Respondent
No.2. Bulk consumers pay for water by
allocation and not by consumption. Irrespective
of any increase in construction or other
developments, the water to be supplied under
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
the agreement does not increase, and
therefore, the Regulations do not apply to a
bulk consumer.
19.8. Alternatively, Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that if
the Petitioner is held liable to pay pro-rata
charges, then such charges should be payable
as per the rates applicable when water supply
was first made, that is, in the year 2004. In
support, he relied upon the decision of this
Court in IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. v.
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board.
19.9. Sri.Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondents No.2 and 3, at the
outset, submitted that the Petitioner has an
alternative efficacious remedy under Sections
120 and 121 of the BWSS Act, 1964. Section
120 provides for an appeal by any person
aggrieved by any decision or order of the Water
Supply Engineer or any other officer, while
Section 121 provides for revision by the Board.
He submitted that without having availed the
statutory appellate remedy, the writ petition is
not maintainable.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
19.10. Without prejudice to the above, Sri. Ravi B.
Naik submitted that BWSSB is a statutory body
constituted under the BWSS Act, discharging
the essential duty of supplying water to the
entire city of Bengaluru. If funds are not made
available to BWSSB, it would not be in a
position to discharge its duties and obligations,
putting the entire population at risk. He
referred to the enormous financial burden
borne by BWSSB on account of the formation of
Greater Bengaluru in 2008, whereby 7 CMCs, 1
TMC and 110 villages were amalgamated, and
the attendant massive expansion of service
obligations.
19.11. Sri. Ravi B. Naik placed reliance on Section 16
of the BWSS Act, which empowers the Board to
levy rates, fees, rentals, pro-rata charges,
deposits, taxes and other charges for carrying
on its operations. He further referred to
Sections 31, 61 and 88 of the BWSS Act, and
Regulation 5.3 of the Regulations, all of which
provide for the levy and collection of charges
including pro-rata charges.
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
19.12. Sri. Ravi B. Naik relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Jalkal Vibhag Nagar
Nigam and Ors. v. Pradeshiya Industrial
and Investment Corporation and Anr.
[supra], more particularly paragraph 26,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the payment of water tax and sewerage tax is
regardless of whether the premises are
connected with water supply or with a sewer,
so long as a provision for water supply or
sewerage is made by the authority in the area
covered.
19.13. He further relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer
[supra] more particularly paragraphs 6 and 7,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
once a person enters into a contract and avails
a service, he cannot contend that the rates are
not fair. The prescription of rates is a matter for
legislative judgment and not for judicial
determination.
19.14. Sri. Ravi B. Naik also relied upon the judgment
dated 02.07.2004 in WA No.3657 of 2000
(Muniswami and connected matters),
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
wherein the Division Bench of this Court held
that the levy of pro-rata charges is in the
nature of a fee for services rendered, and
Section 16 empowers the Board to levy and
vary such fees to provide sufficient revenue. He
further relied upon the decision in Ajai Kumar
v. State of U.P., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the wisdom and advisability of
economic policy are not amenable to judicial
review.
19.15. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that there is no
separate educational category under the
statute; only residential and commercial
classifications exist. The Petitioner itself
described its premises as a "commercial
complex" in the application for additional water
connection dated 08.02.2016. He also pointed
out that BESCOM provides electricity to the
Petitioner at commercial rates.
19.16. He further relied on Section 89A, inserted by
Act 32 of 2010 with retrospective effect from
01.01.2003, authorising the State Government
to direct the Board to collect capital
contribution from beneficiaries. He also referred
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
to the decision of this Court in M/s Shobha
Limited -v- State of Karnataka7, where the
demand for pro-rata charges by BWSSB was
upheld.
19.17. Sri. Boppanna Belliyappa, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1-State, adopted the
submissions of Sri. Ravi B. Naik and submitted
that the imposition of Beneficiary Capital
Contribution and pro-rata charges is a policy
decision of the State for providing better
facilities to the citizens, especially the supply of
water and good drainage systems, which are
regarded as essential services. He supported
the contentions of Respondents No.2 and 3 in
their entirety.
19.18. I have carefully considered the rival
submissions of both sides on this point. The
core question is whether the Petitioner has
made out a case for a declaration that it is not
liable to pay pro-rata charges as demanded by
the Respondents. To answer this question, it is
necessary to examine the statutory framework,
7
WP No.20016 of 2021
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
the nature of the agreement between the
parties, and the factual matrix of the case.
19.19. At the very outset, the preliminary objection
raised by Sri. Ravi B. Naik regarding the
availability of an alternative remedy under
Sections 120 and 121 of the BWSS Act must be
addressed. These provisions are extracted
hereunder:
"120. Appeals.--Any person aggrieved by any
decision or order of the Water Supply Engineer or
the Sanitary Engineer or other officer under this
Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder may
within a period of sixty days from the date of such
decision or order appeal to the authority
prescribed by the regulations and subject to
revision by the Board, the orders of the appellate
authority on such appeal shall be final."
"121. Revision.--The Board may call for the
records of any proceedings of any officer
subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the legality or propriety of any order or
proceeding and may pass such order with respect
thereto as it thinks fit."
19.20. The BWSS Act provides a complete statutory
mechanism for the resolution of disputes
relating to demands raised by the Board's
officers. Section 120 creates a right of appeal
within sixty days, and Section 121 provides for
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
a further revisional remedy before the Board
itself. The Petitioner has not availed itself of
these statutory remedies before approaching
this Court. The existence of these remedies is a
highly relevant factor. However, since the
Petitioner has raised certain questions
regarding the interpretation of statutory
provisions and the scope of the agreement, this
Court, while noting the availability of the
alternative remedy, has proceeded to examine
the matter on merits. This consideration
regarding alternative remedy will, however, be
a material factor in the final analysis.
19.21. Turning to the statutory framework, the BWSS
Act was enacted to provide for the
establishment of a Board for the purpose of
water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal in
the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Section 16 of
the BWSS Act, which is the principal charging
provision, empowers the Board to levy a wide
spectrum of charges. The said provision reads:
"16. General principles for Board's finance.--
(1) For carrying on its operations under this Act,
the Board shall levy rates, fees, rentals, prorata
charges, deposits, taxes, and other charges and
shall vary such rates, fees, rentals, prorate
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
charges, deposits, taxes and other charges from
time to time in order to provide sufficient
revenue,-- (a) to cover operating expenses, taxes,
interest payments and to provide for adequate
maintenance and depreciation, contribution to
pension fund including all expenses incurred
during the year; (b) to meet repayment of loans
and other borrowings; (c) to finance year to year
improvement; and (d) to provide for such other
purposes beneficial to the promotion of water
supply and disposal of sewage in the Bangalore
Metropolitan area as the Board may determine."
19.22. A careful reading of Section 16 reveals that the
legislature has used the widest possible
language. The Board "shall levy" pro-rata
charges. The use of the word "shall" indicates
that the levy of pro-rata charges is not merely
a discretionary power but a statutory obligation
placed upon the Board to generate sufficient
revenue for its operations. Furthermore, the
provision empowers the Board to "vary" such
charges "from time to time," thus clothing the
Board with a continuing power to revise the
charges to keep pace with increasing
operational demands. This power is not a one-
time power but a continuing statutory mandate.
19.23. The definition of "pro-rata charges" under
Section 2(17)(a) of the BWSS Act is also
instructive:
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
"2(17)(a) 'Pro rata charges' means
proportionate charges towards cost of
improvement of water supply and sewerage
systems levied by the Board from time to time
payable by owner or occupier or developer of
any building."
19.24. The definition itself contains the phrase "levied
by the Board from time to time," which
reinforces the continuing nature of the power to
levy and vary pro-rata charges. Pro-rata
charges are not tied to a specific pipeline or a
specific connection but are towards the cost of
improvement of the entire water supply and
sewerage system. They are, in substance, a
contribution towards the general infrastructure
improvement undertaken by BWSSB for the
benefit of all consumers within the greater
Bengaluru area.
19.25. Crucially, Section 31 of the BWSS Act contains
a non-obstante clause that overrides all
contractual arrangements. The said provision
reads:
"31. Payment to be made for water supplied.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 127
or any law, contract or other instrument, for all
water supplied under this Act, payment shall be
made at such rates, at such times and under such
conditions as may be specified by regulations, and
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
different rates may be prescribed for supply of
water for different purposes."
19.26. The opening words of Section 31 are emphatic:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in ... any
law, contract or other instrument." This non-
obstante clause is of the widest amplitude. It
expressly overrides any contract or agreement
between the parties. The agreement dated
06.05.2004 relied upon by Sri. S. Sriranga is
precisely the kind of "contract or other
instrument" that Section 31 overrides.
Whatever may be the terms of the agreement,
Section 31 mandates that payment for water
supplied shall be made at rates specified by the
Regulations. The Petitioner cannot take shelter
behind the agreement to escape the statutory
obligation to pay pro-rata charges, which are
charges "specified by regulations" within the
meaning of Section 31.
19.27. As regards Regulation 54, on which Sri. S.
Sriranga placed heavy reliance, a close reading
reveals that it does not support the Petitioner's
contention. Regulation 54 provides that the
Regulations shall apply "mutatis mutandis" to
supply outside city limits, "except where such
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
supply is controlled by a separate agreement
with the Board." The key question is: what does
the phrase "controlled by a separate
agreement" mean? It means that where there
is a separate agreement, the specific terms of
that agreement control the supply
arrangements. However, Regulation 54 cannot
be read in isolation; it must be read
harmoniously with Section 31 of the BWSS Act,
which is the parent statute. A regulation cannot
override the parent Act. Section 31 expressly
provides that notwithstanding any contract,
payment shall be at rates specified by
regulations. Therefore, Regulation 54 can only
be understood to mean that the operational
terms of supply (such as quantum, timing,
infrastructure costs) may be governed by the
agreement, but the statutory charges, including
pro-rata charges, which are mandated by the
Act itself, cannot be excluded by any
agreement.
19.28. The submission of Sri.S.Sriranga that the
agreement does not mention pro-rata charges
and therefore none can be levied, cannot be
accepted. The absence of a specific mention of
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
pro-rata charges in the agreement does not
mean that the Petitioner is exempt from
statutory charges. Pro-rata charges are levied
by virtue of the statute, not by virtue of the
agreement. The agreement is a contractual
arrangement for supply of water; the pro-rata
charges are a statutory levy mandated by
Section 16 of the BWSS Act. The two operate in
different planes. One cannot exclude the other.
Even if the agreement is silent on pro-rata
charges, the statutory mandate under Section
16 read with Regulation 5.3 continues to apply.
19.29. The above interpretation finds strong support
from the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
WA No.3657 of 2000 (Muniswami and
connected matters), decided on 02.07.2004,
wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, after an
exhaustive examination of the BWSS Act,
upheld the levy of pro-rata charges and held
that Section 16 empowers the Board not only to
levy fees and other charges but also to vary
such fees to provide sufficient revenue. The
Hon'ble Division Bench specifically held that the
levy of pro-rata charges has a correlation with
the services rendered by the Board and
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
constitutes a compulsory measure undertaken
in the interest of the public. The relevant
observation reads:
"11. ... In the face of such data showing such a
correlationship, the levy of pro-rata charges cannot
but be considered to be fee or other charges for
the services rendered by the Board to the residents
of the Bangalore Metropolitan area. The word
'Service' in the context of a fee could include a
compulsory measure undertaken vis-a-vis the
payer in the interest of the public."
19.30. This Division Bench decision is binding on this
Court as a Single Judge and directly holds that
pro-rata charges are a valid and compulsory
levy. The appeals against the original judgment
in WP No.26084 of 1995 were dismissed by the
Division Bench, thereby affirming the levy. The
Petitioner, who avails the water supply made
available by BWSSB, a supply that is sustained
by the enormous infrastructure investment of
the Board across the Bengaluru Metropolitan
Area now the Greater Bangalore Area, cannot
claim exemption from the common obligation to
contribute towards that infrastructure through
pro-rata charges.
19.31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer
[supra] laid down the principle that where a
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
person subscribes to a service, the rates are a
matter of legislative and policy judgment, not
judicial determination. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are
relevant:
"6. There are three principal reasons why the writ
petition is incompetent and not maintainable ...
First, when any subscriber to a telephone enters
into a contract with the State, the subscriber has
the option to enter into a contract or not. If he
does so, he has to pay the rates which are charged
by the State for installation. A subscriber cannot
say that the rates are not fair. No one is
compelling one to subscribe."
"7. The courts have no jurisdiction under Article
226 to go into reasonableness of rates. These
rates are decided as policy matter in fiscal
planning. There is legislative prescription of rates.
Rates are a matter for legislative judgment and
not for judicial determination."
19.32. Applying the ratio of this decision, the Petitioner
voluntarily approached BWSSB seeking water
supply. It was not compelled to do so. Having
entered into the arrangement and availed the
supply for over two decades, the Petitioner
cannot now contend that the rates, including
pro-rata charges, are not fair or applicable. The
decision to levy pro-rata charges is a policy
decision of the Board acting under statutory
authority, and this Court, in exercise of writ
jurisdiction, ought not to substitute its
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
judgment for that of the statutory authority on
matters of fiscal policy.
19.33. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajhai
Kumar v. State of U.P. further reinforces this
principle by holding that the "wisdom and
advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not
amenable to judicial review." The levy of pro-
rata charges is an integral part of the financial
policy of BWSSB, sanctioned by the legislature
through Section 16 of the BWSS Act. The Court
ought not to interfere with such a policy
determination.
19.34. As regards the reliance placed by Sri. S.
Sriranga on the decision in RFA No.1851 of
2007 (B. Venkatesh v. BWSSB), wherein this
Court held that pro-rata charges are a one-time
payment collected at the time of new
construction, the said decision must be
carefully examined. In the B. Venkatesh case,
the Court was considering a situation where
BWSSB sought to demand pro-rata charges
from a building that was already existing prior
to 1998 and already had a water and sewerage
connection. The Court held that pro-rata
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
charges, in that context, could not be levied on
an existing structure that already had
connections. The factual matrix of the present
case is materially different. Here, the Petitioner
was not an existing consumer within the
BWSSB limits who already had a connection.
The Petitioner is located outside the BWSSB
limits and sought a fresh water supply
connection in 2004. This was a new connection,
not a pre-existing one. The ratio of B.
Venkatesh, therefore, does not apply to the
present case. In any event, the B. Venkatesh
case was a decision by a single Judge in a
Regular First Appeal, which cannot override the
Division Bench decision in WA No.3657 of
2000 (Muniswami) that upheld the levy of
pro-rata charges.
19.35. The submission that the Petitioner bore the cost
of Rs.93 lakhs for laying the pipeline and
therefore no pro-rata charges are leviable,
proceeds on a fundamental misconception. The
Rs.93 lakhs was paid by the Petitioner towards
the specific cost of developing the physical
infrastructure (pipeline) to carry water from
Harohalli Pumping Station to the Petitioner's
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
campus. This was a consumer-specific
infrastructure cost. Pro-rata charges, on the
other hand, are a general levy towards the cost
of improvement of the overall water supply and
sewerage system of the entire Bengaluru
Metropolitan Area. The two are conceptually
different. The pipeline serves only the
Petitioner, whereas the pro-rata charges
contribute to the common pool for improvement
of the system that sources, treats, and delivers
water. The Petitioner's pipeline would be of no
use without the upstream infrastructure
maintained by BWSSB, the Cauvery water
treatment works, the pumping stations, the
main trunk lines, and the entire distribution
network. The payment of Rs.93 lakhs towards
the last-mile pipeline does not relieve the
Petitioner of its obligation to contribute towards
the general system improvement through pro-
rata charges.
19.36. The contention that the Petitioner is a "bulk
consumer" and therefore exempt from pro-rata
charges is also without substance. There is no
provision in the BWSS Act or the Regulations
that exempts bulk consumers from the
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
payment of pro-rata charges. The concept of
"bulk consumer" relates to the mode of billing
(by allocation rather than by metered
consumption) and does not create an
exemption from statutory charges. Section 16
of the BWSS Act makes no distinction between
bulk consumers and individual consumers with
respect to pro-rata charges. The definition of
pro-rata charges under Section 2(17)(a) refers
to charges payable by "owner or occupier or
developer of any building." The Petitioner, as
the occupier of the buildings on its campus,
falls squarely within this definition.
19.37. As regards the alternative submission of Sri. S.
Sriranga relying on IBC Knowledge Park (P)
Ltd. [supra], that pro-rata charges should at
most be at 2004 rates, the said decision, on
careful reading, actually supports the
Respondents' position. In IBC Knowledge
Park, this Court upheld the levy of pro-rata
charges. The only question was the applicable
rate. This Court held that the rate applicable is
the rate at the time the demand crystallises,
taking into account the completion of
formalities, and not merely the date of the
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
application. In the present case, no pro-rata
charges were ever collected from the Petitioner
since 2004. The demand crystallised only in
2016 when the impugned communications were
issued. Applying the ratio of IBC Knowledge
Park, the rate applicable would be the rate
prevailing at the time of the demand, which is
precisely what the Respondents have applied.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that in IBC
Knowledge Park, the Petitioner did not even
challenge the concept of pro-rata charges but
only the rate, which is a significant concession
that underlines the well-settled nature of the
levy.
19.38. Section 89A of the BWSS Act, inserted by Act
32 of 2010 with retrospective effect from
01.01.2003, further fortifies the Respondents'
position. The said provision reads:
"89A. Collection of capital contribution from
the beneficiary or borrowing loan etc., in
respect of any project.--In furtherance of
implementation of any water supply and sanitation
projects, the State Government may issue
directions to the Board for making funding
arrangements, to collect capital contribution from
the beneficiaries of the project or through any
Local Authority or to borrow loans from funding
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
agencies or to borrow from the market as per
requirements of the projects."
19.39. This provision, given retrospective effect from
01.01.2003, empowers the State Government
to direct the Board to collect capital
contribution from beneficiaries of water supply
and sanitation projects. The Petitioner's water
supply connection, having been granted in 2004
(after the retrospective date of 01.01.2003),
falls within the ambit of this provision. The
demand for pro-rata charges is, in substance, a
form of capital contribution from a beneficiary
of the water supply system, and is fully covered
by Section 89A.
19.40. Regulation 5.3 of the Regulations, as amended,
mandates the payment of pro-rata charges. The
relevant portion reads:
"Regulation 5.3 of the BWSSB Regulations
mandates that the owner, lessee or occupier
desirous of obtaining a water supply connection
shall pay pro-rate charges to the Board in
accordance with Section 16 of the Act. As per
the prescribed rates, non-residential and
commercial buildings are liable to pay pro-rata
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
charges at Rs.600/- per square metre, subject to
applicable conditions."
19.41. The language is mandatory: the owner or
occupier "shall pay" pro-rata charges. There is
no exemption for bulk consumers, educational
institutions, or consumers with separate
agreements. The obligation is universal,
applying to all who obtain or have obtained a
water supply connection.
19.42. Sri. Ravi B. Naik has rightly relied upon the
decision of this Court in WP No.20016 of
2021, wherein this Court upheld the demand
for pro-rata charges by BWSSB. The said
decision reinforces the position that pro-rata
charges are a valid and sustainable levy under
the BWSS Act.
19.43. In view of the above I answer Point No. (i) by
holding that the Petitioner has not made out a
case for a declaration that it is not liable to pay
pro-rata charges. The levy of pro-rata charges
is mandated by Section 16 of the BWSS Act,
upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Muniswami, and is a charge towards
the general infrastructure improvement of the
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
water supply and sewerage system. The
agreement dated 06.05.2004 cannot override
the statutory mandate of Section 31 read with
Section 16. Regulation 54 does not exempt the
Petitioner from statutory charges. The payment
of Rs.93 lakhs towards the pipeline does not
substitute for pro-rata charges, which serve a
different purpose. The Petitioner's status as a
bulk consumer does not exempt it from
statutory charges. The decision in B. Venkatesh
is distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, this
Point is answered against the Petitioner and in
favour of the Respondents.
20. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the
communications dated 18.02.2016 and
02.04.2016 demanding pro-rata charges are
liable to be quashed as being without authority
of law, contrary to the provisions of the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act,
1964 and the Regulations framed thereunder?
20.1. Sri.S.Sriranga submitted that the
communication dated 18.02.2016 demanding
pro-rata charges of Rs.4,32,64,474/- and the
communication dated 02.04.2016 demanding
additional pro-rata charges for the past period
amounting to Rs.8,64,27,448/- are both
without authority of law and liable to be
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
quashed. He contended that the impugned
communications were issued without
application of mind, in an arbitrary manner, and
only to harass the Petitioner. He further
contended that the demand was made at
commercial rates whereas the Petitioner is an
educational institution, and that the demand
includes pro-rata charges for both water and
sanitary connection when no sanitary
connection has been provided.
20.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that the
communications are issued in exercise of the
statutory powers of the Board under Section 16
of the BWSS Act and Regulation 5.3 of the
Regulations. He contended that when the water
connection was originally issued, pro-rata
charges were not collected, and the demand
now made is to recover those charges as
mandated by law. He submitted that the Board
has a statutory obligation to levy and collect
pro-rata charges, and the communications are
merely in discharge of that obligation.
20.3. Having held under Point No.(i) that the
Petitioner is liable to pay pro-rata charges, the
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
challenge to the communications dated
18.02.2016 and 02.04.2016 must be examined
in that light.
20.4. The communication dated 18.02.2016 demands
pro-rata charges of Rs.4,32,64,474/- from the
Petitioner and further demands additional pro-
rata charges for the past period amounting to
Rs.8,64,27,448/- under Regulation 5.3 and
Section 16 of the BWSS Act. The
communication was issued by the competent
authority of BWSSB, namely the office of the
EIC/CE(M), and is founded upon the statutory
mandate to collect pro-rata charges.
20.5. The authority to issue such communications
flows directly from the statutory scheme.
Section 16 mandates the levy. Regulation 5.3
prescribes the rates. Section 89A, with
retrospective effect from 01.01.2003,
authorises the collection of capital contributions
from beneficiaries. The communications are a
logical and lawful consequence of these
statutory provisions. They are not arbitrary or
without authority; they are a belated but
necessary exercise of statutory duty.
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
20.6. The contention that the communications were
issued to "harass" the Petitioner is without
substance. The demand for statutory charges
from a consumer who has not paid them is the
performance of a statutory duty, not an act of
harassment. The fact that the demand was
raised in 2016 for a connection given in 2004 is
explained by the submission of Sri. Ravi B. Naik
that pro-rata charges were inadvertently not
collected at the time of the original connection.
The Board's omission to collect charges at the
appropriate time does not extinguish its right to
collect them subsequently, especially when the
statute itself empowers the Board to vary
charges "from time to time."
20.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jalkal Vibhag
Nagar Nigam [supra] has held at paragraph
26 that the liability to pay water and sewerage
charges exists regardless of whether a
connection is actually provided, so long as the
provision for such services exists in the area.
The relevant extract reads:
"26. ... Section 52 and Section 56 also indicate
that the intention of the legislature is to collect
water tax and sewerage tax from the occupier
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
of the premises, where the premises are
connected with water supply or, as the case
may be, with a sewer of the Jal Sansthan and,
in case where the premises are not so
connected, from the owner of the premises.
Therefore, the payment of water tax and
sewerage tax is regardless of whether the
premises are connected with water supply or
with a sewer of the Jal Sansthan. ... So long as
a provision for water supply or a sewerage is
made by the Jal Sansthan in the area covered,
the occupier or the owner of the premises is
liable to pay the taxes."
20.8. Applying this principle, the communications are
issued under lawful authority and in pursuance
of the statutory mandate. They cannot be
characterised as arbitrary or without authority
of law.
20.9. As regards the specific quantum and
computation contained in the communications,
while the Petitioner may have grievances about
classification and rates (which are addressed
under subsequent Points), the communications
themselves, as instruments demanding pro-rata
charges, are validly issued under statutory
authority and are not liable to be quashed on
the ground of want of authority.
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
20.10. Accordingly, I answer point no. (ii) by holding
that the communications dated 18.02.2016 and
02.04.2016 are not liable to be quashed as
being without authority of law.
21. Answer to Point No. (iii): Whether, in the facts
of the case, the Respondents are legally
entitled to levy pro-rata charges upon the
Petitioner in respect of a water connection
granted pursuant to the agreement dated
06.05.2004?
21.1. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that the water
connection was not granted in the ordinary
course but was a special grant pursuant to a
Government Order dated 21.02.2004 and a
specific agreement dated 06.05.2004. The
agreement does not contain any clause
requiring the Petitioner to pay pro-rata charges.
He submitted that the Petitioner is a bulk
consumer paying by allocation, and the pro-
rata charges linked to area of construction are
conceptually inapplicable to a bulk consumer
arrangement.
21.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that the agreement
cannot override the statutory provisions.
Section 31 of the BWSS Act contains a non-
obstante clause providing that notwithstanding
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
anything contained in any contract, payment
for water supplied shall be at rates specified by
regulations. He further submitted that the non-
collection of pro-rata charges at the time of the
original connection was an administrative error
which cannot enure to the benefit of the
Petitioner in perpetuity. The pipeline laid by the
Petitioner serves only the Petitioner and is not a
substitute for the general levy towards system-
wide improvement.
21.3. The central issue under this Point is the
interplay between the statutory power to levy
pro-rata charges and the agreement dated
06.05.2004. The analysis undertaken under
Point No.(i) is directly relevant here.
21.4. As held under Point No.(i), Section 31 of the
BWSS Act contains a non-obstante clause of the
widest amplitude that overrides any "law,
contract or other instrument." The agreement
dated 06.05.2004 is a "contract" that falls
squarely within the scope of Section 31. No
contractual arrangement can supersede the
statutory mandate to pay charges "at such
rates, at such times and under such conditions
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
as may be specified by regulations." Regulation
5.3, which mandates the payment of pro-rata
charges, is a regulation that falls within the
scope of Section 31. Significantly, neither
Section 16, Section 31 nor Regulation 5.3 are
challenged, hence they are required ot be
applied "as is".
21.5. The argument that the agreement does not
mention pro-rata charges and therefore none
can be levied must be rejected. Statutory
obligations are not dependent on contractual
stipulations. The Petitioner's obligation to pay
pro-rata charges arises by force of the statute,
specifically Section 16 read with Regulation 5.3,
and not by force of the agreement. The silence
of the agreement on this point is, at best,
neutral; it neither creates nor extinguishes the
statutory liability.
21.6. As for the Government Order dated
21.02.2004, the fact that the Government
sanctioned the water supply does not mean
that the Government intended to exempt the
Petitioner from all statutory charges. The
Government Order sanctioned the supply; the
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
statutory charges for that supply are separately
governed by the BWSS Act and Regulations.
The Government Order does not contain any
exemption from pro-rata charges.
21.7. The Division Bench in WA No.3657 of 2000
(Muniswami) upheld the Board's power to
levy and vary pro-rata charges. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer [supra] held
that rates are a matter for legislative judgment.
These authorities clearly support the
proposition that the Board is entitled to levy
pro-rata charges regardless of the terms of any
individual agreement.
21.8. The submission regarding the Petitioner being a
"bulk consumer" has been addressed under
Point No.(i). There is no statutory exemption
for bulk consumers from pro-rata charges. The
concept of bulk consumer relates to the billing
methodology, not to the scope of statutory
charges.
21.9. The non-collection of pro-rata charges at the
time of the original connection in 2004 does not
create an irrevocable exemption. An
administrative omission does not amount to a
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
statutory exemption. The Board's failure to
collect charges at the appropriate time does not
extinguish the statutory right to collect them
subsequently, particularly when Section 16
empowers the Board to vary charges "from
time to time."
21.10. In view of the above, I answer Point No. (iii) by
holding that the Respondents are legally
entitled to levy pro-rata charges upon the
Petitioner in respect of the water connection
granted pursuant to the agreement dated
06.05.2004.
22. Answer to Point No. (iv): Whether the levy of
pro-rata charges at the rates applied by the
Respondents, including classification of the
Petitioner's institution for that purpose, is
legally sustainable?
22.1. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that the Respondents
have classified the Petitioner's educational
institution as a "commercial building" at the
rate of Rs.600/- per square metre, which is
erroneous. The customer charter on BWSSB's
website specifically provides a separate
classification for educational institutions. If pro-
rata charges were to be levied, they should
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
have been levied under the educational
classification.
22.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that the BWSS Act
and Regulations classify buildings into
residential and commercial categories only.
There is no separate statutory classification for
educational institutions. The customer charter
relied upon by the Petitioner is an outdated
guidance document uploaded in 2005 without
statutory force. He pointed out that the
Petitioner itself described its premises as a
"commercial complex" in its application for
additional water connection dated 08.02.2016.
He also submitted that BESCOM provides
electricity to the Petitioner at commercial rates.
22.3. The question under this Point is whether the
classification of the Petitioner's institution as
"commercial" and the application of the rate of
Rs.600/- per square metre is legally
sustainable.
22.4. Regulation 5.3 stipulates levy of pro-rata
charges at the rate of ₹600/- per square metre
in respect of "non-residential and commercial
buildings." The statutory framework under the
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
BWSS Act and the Regulations contemplates
only a binary classification of buildings, namely:
(i) residential, and (ii) non-
residential/commercial. There exists no
independent or distinct statutory classification
for educational institutions within the scheme of
the Act or the Regulations.
22.5. The reliance placed by Sri. S. Sriranga upon the
Customer Charter is misconceived. As rightly
contended by Sri. Ravi B. Naik, the said Charter
is merely an administrative or informational
document which was uploaded on the website
in or about the year 2005. It does not derive
authority from the statute, nor has it been
framed in exercise of delegated legislative
power. It therefore lacks statutory force.
22.6. It is trite that an administrative instruction,
executive guideline, or informational publication
cannot override, modify, supplement, or create
exceptions to a statutory regulation. The
Regulations, having been framed with the
approval of the State Government under
Section 88 of the BWSS Act, constitute
subordinate legislation and are binding in
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
character. The field of classification having been
exhaustively occupied by the Regulations, no
third category can be read into the scheme on
the basis of a non-statutory publication.
22.7. At the same time, this Court considers it
necessary to issue a clear word of caution to
the BWSSB regarding the material it places on
its official website.
22.8. In today's context, the website of a public
authority is not merely an informational
platform. For most citizens, it is the first and
often the only source of information. An
ordinary person does not ordinarily read the
parent Act or the detailed Regulations framed
under it. Instead, he or she relies on what is
published on the official website. Such reliance
is natural and reasonable.
22.9. When a statutory body publishes a Customer
Charter or similar document on its official
website, the public is entitled to assume that
the contents correctly reflect the applicable
legal position. The distinction between a
statutory Regulation and an administrative
document may be clear to lawyers, but it is not
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
apparent to a layperson. Therefore, if the
website contains information that does not
strictly align with the statutory Regulations, it
can create genuine confusion.
22.10. Such confusion can have serious consequences.
Citizens may make financial commitments, plan
construction, or arrange their affairs based on
the information published online. If that
information later turns out to be inconsistent
with the governing Regulations, it may result in
financial loss, grievance, and unnecessary
litigation. This not only burdens the citizen but
also leads to avoidable disputes before the
Court.
22.11. Public authorities must recognise that any
representation made on an official website
carries weight and authority. Even if such
material does not have statutory force, it
influences public conduct. Inconsistent or
outdated information can undermine public
confidence and give rise to allegations of
arbitrariness or unfairness.
22.12. It is therefore necessary that the BWSSB:
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
22.12.1. Regularly review and update the content
on its website;
22.12.2. Ensure that all published material
accurately reflects the current statutory
Regulations;
22.12.3. Clearly distinguish between binding
Regulations and explanatory or general
information; and
22.12.4. Remove or correct any outdated or
misleading material without delay.
22.13. If any explanatory document is hosted for
public convenience, it should clearly state that
in case of any inconsistency, the Act and the
Regulations will prevail.
22.14. The website of a statutory authority is an
important public interface. Accuracy, clarity,
and consistency in such communication are
essential. The BWSSB must therefore exercise
due care in what it uploads, as the ordinary
citizen is entitled to rely upon the information
published on its official platform.
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
22.15. Accordingly, in the absence of a distinct
statutory classification for educational
institutions, such buildings necessarily fall
within the category of non-
residential/commercial buildings for the
purposes of Regulation 5.3.
22.16. The Petitioner's institution, being a large
residential school with extensive campus
infrastructure, is not a residential premises in
the conventional sense. It is an institution that
operates commercially in the sense that it
charges fees and provides services. It falls
within the "non-residential" category as defined
by the Regulations. The fact that it is an
educational institution does not alter this
classification under the applicable statutory
framework.
22.17. Significantly, the Petitioner itself described its
premises as a "commercial complex" in the
application for additional water connection
dated 08.02.2016. The Note appended to the
record records that while the classification
"office" has been ticked, the words "educational
campus" have been written beside it. The
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
application form at Column-C provides
classifications of hotel, lodge, restaurant,
nursing home/hospital/commercial complex; at
D--factory; and at E--office. The Petitioner,
when required to select a classification, chose
"commercial complex" from the available
options. This is a significant admission by
conduct. The Petitioner cannot, having
described its own premises as a commercial
complex before the very authority, now turn
around and contend before this Court that it is
not a commercial establishment.
22.18. The reliance on the customer charter as
creating a separate educational classification is
misconceived. A guidance document hosted on
a website does not have the force of law. It
cannot override the statutory Regulations. Even
the principle of legitimate expectation does not
avail the Petitioner, for legitimate expectation
cannot run counter to the express provisions of
a statute. Where the statute provides only for
residential and commercial categories, a
website document purporting to create an
additional category is without legal force.
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
22.19. The submission regarding BESCOM electricity
tariff is pertinent as a corroborative factor.
While the classification for electricity and water
may be under different statutory frameworks,
the fact that the Petitioner pays electricity
charges at commercial rates is consistent with
the Respondents' classification of the
Petitioner's premises as commercial for the
purpose of pro-rata charges.
22.20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer's
case [supra] held that rates are a matter for
legislative judgment. The classification of
buildings for the purpose of pro-rata charges is
a part of the regulatory framework established
by the Board with the approval of the State
Government. This Court, in exercise of writ
jurisdiction, ought not to create new
classifications that the legislature and the
regulator have not seen fit to create.
22.21. Accordingly, I answer Point No. (iv) by holding
that the classification of the Petitioner's
institution as a commercial/non-residential
building and the application of the rate of
Rs.600/- per square metre is legally
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
sustainable. This Point is answered against the
Petitioner and in favour of the Respondents.
23. Answer to Point No. (v): Whether the
Respondents are entitled to levy consolidated
pro-rata charges towards both water and
sewerage components in respect of the
Petitioner's premises?
23.1. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that only a water
connection has been provided to the Petitioner;
no sanitary connection has been provided, nor
can it be provided since no sewerage lines
exist. The demand for consolidated pro-rata
charges covering both water and sewerage
components, when no sewerage connection
exists, is arbitrary. He submitted that the
Respondents were duty-bound to bifurcate the
charges and levy only the water component.
23.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that since
01.03.2008, combined pro-rata charges for
both water and sewerage services have been
levied, and bifurcation does not arise. He relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam [supra],
particularly paragraph 26 to submit that the
payment of water and sewerage taxes is
regardless of whether actual connection exists,
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
so long as the provision for such services is
made in the area. He further relied on the
Government notification dated 19.01.2016,
which mandates educational institutions with
5000 square metres or more to install a
sewerage treatment plant, and submitted that
the Petitioner has indeed installed one.
23.3. This Point requires examination of whether
consolidated pro-rata charges covering both
water and sewerage components can be levied
on the Petitioner when no sewerage connection
has been provided.
23.4. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam [supra] is
directly on point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
interpreting the statutory framework for water
and sewerage taxes, held in clear terms:
"26. ... Therefore, the payment of water tax and
sewerage tax is regardless of whether the
premises are connected with water supply or with
a sewer of the Jal Sansthan. There is no exemption
from the payment of water tax or sewerage tax as
both the contingencies--the premises being
connected with water supply (or, as the case may
be, with a sewer of the Jal Sansthan) or there
being no such connection--have been covered
under the provisions of Section 56. So long as a
provision for water supply or a sewerage is made
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
by the Jal Sansthan in the area covered, the
occupier or the owner of the premises is liable to
pay the taxes. Both the water tax as well as the
sewerage tax could be consolidated for the
purpose of levying, assessing and collecting them
under Section 57 of the Act."
23.5. While the aforesaid decision was rendered in
the context of the U.P. Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, the underlying principle is of
universal application: the liability to pay
charges towards water supply and sewerage is
not contingent on the actual provision of an
individual connection. The charges contribute to
the common pool for the improvement and
maintenance of the overall system. The fact
that the Petitioner's premises do not have a
physical sewerage connection does not exempt
it from contributing towards the sewerage
infrastructure that BWSSB is obligated to
develop and maintain across the metropolitan
area.
23.6. Pro-rata charges, as defined under Section
2(17)(a) of the BWSS Act, are charges towards
the cost of improvement of "water supply and
sewerage systems" both components are
included in the very definition. The definition
does not create separate levies for water and
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
sewerage; it envisages a single consolidated
charge towards both systems. The circular
dated 01.03.2008, which consolidated the
previously separate charges into a single levy,
is consistent with this statutory definition.
23.7. Furthermore, the Government notification dated
19.01.2016 issued by the Forest, Ecology and
Environment Secretariat mandates that
educational institutions with a built-up area of
5000 square metres and above are required to
install a sewerage treatment plant. The
Petitioner has installed such a plant,
demonstrating that it generates sewage that
requires treatment. The Petitioner's installation
of its own sewerage treatment plant does not
exempt it from contributing to the system;
rather, it demonstrates the need for sewerage
management at the premises level.
23.8. The submission that the Respondents were
duty-bound to bifurcate the charges
presupposes that the charges are severable.
However, since 01.03.2008, the charges have
been consolidated by the Board, and the
statutory definition under Section 2(17)(a)
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
treats them as a single levy. This Court cannot
direct the Board to bifurcate what the Board, in
the exercise of its regulatory power, has
consolidated.
23.9. Accordingly, I answer Point No. (v) by holding
that the Respondents are entitled to levy
consolidated pro-rata charges towards both
water and sewerage components, irrespective
of either connection not being provided,
provision of one of the connections is sufficient
for the levy of charges on both connections.
24. Answer to Point No. (vi): Whether the demand
of pro-rata charges for the period in question is
legally enforceable, having regard to the time
of grant of connection and subsequent
revisions of rates?
24.1. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that even if the
Petitioner is liable to pay pro-rata charges, such
charges should be computed at the rates
prevailing in 2004 when the water connection
was granted. He relied on IBC Knowledge
Park (P) Ltd. v. BWSSB, and B. Venkatesh
case to support the submission that pro-rata
charges are a one-time levy at the rate
prevailing at the time of connection.
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
24.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that since no pro-
rata charges were collected at the time of the
connection in 2004, the demand raised in 2016
must be calculated at the rates then prevailing.
He submitted that Section 16 empowers the
Board to vary charges from time to time, and
the rate applicable is the rate at the time of the
demand. He also submitted that the Petitioner
is liable to pay interest for the delayed
payment.
24.3. The question under this Point is: at what rate
should the pro-rata charges be computed at the
rate prevailing in 2004 when the connection
was granted, or at the rate prevailing in 2016
when the demand was raised?
24.4. Section 16 of the BWSS Act empowers the
Board to "vary" pro-rata charges "from time to
time." The definition of pro-rata charges under
Section 2(17)(a) refers to charges "levied by
the Board from time to time." These statutory
phrases clearly indicate that the rate of pro-
rata charges is not frozen at any particular
point in time but is subject to periodic revision.
The rate applicable is the rate in force at the
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
time the liability is assessed and the demand is
raised.
24.5. The decision of this Court in IBC Knowledge
Park (P) Ltd., on which the Petitioner relies,
actually supports the Respondents' position on
this point. In that case, this Court held that the
rate applicable is the rate at the time the
demand crystallises, not the date of the initial
application. The Court held at paragraph 12:
"12. ... As on the date of application the occupancy
certificate was not enclosed but the Petitioner
insisted on having completed the construction and
occupied due to which inspection was conducted
on 19-11-2008 during which time the
discrepancies were noticed and the demand was
raised on 27-11-2008. That being the position, the
prorata charges applicable subsequent to 1-2-2008
will be applicable to the case of the Petitioner."
24.6. The ratio of IBC Knowledge Park is that the
rate applicable is determined by the date on
which the relevant formalities are completed
and the demand is crystallised. In the present
case, no pro-rata charges were ever collected
from the Petitioner. The demand was
crystallised only in 2016. Applying the ratio of
IBC Knowledge Park, the rate applicable is the
rate prevailing in 2016, which is Rs.600/- per
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
square metre under Regulation 5.3 as
amended.
24.7. The B. Venkatesh case, relied upon by Sri. S.
Sriranga, is distinguishable as already
discussed under Point No.(i). That case dealt
with existing structures that already had
connections. The present case involves a new
connection granted in 2004 where pro-rata
charges were never collected.
24.8. The Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that
it should get the benefit of the lowest possible
rate (2004 rates) when it has had the benefit of
not paying any pro-rata charges for twelve
years. The Petitioner has enjoyed the water
supply without contributing its proportionate
share towards system improvement for over a
decade. The application of the current rate at
the time of the demand is entirely just and in
consonance with the statutory scheme.
24.9. As regards the claim for additional pro-rata
charges for the past period amounting to
Rs.8,64,27,448/-, this is a matter of
computation that is best addressed by the
statutory appellate authority under Section 120
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
of the BWSS Act. However, the principle that
the Board is entitled to levy pro-rata charges at
the rates prevailing at the time of demand is
well established.
24.10. Accordingly, I answer Point No. (v) by holding
that the demand of pro-rata charges at the
rates applied by the Respondents is legally
enforceable.
25. Answer to Point No. (vii): Whether the
Petitioner is entitled to refund or adjustment of
Rs.1,01,91,510/- alleged to have been collected
in excess towards water tariff prior to
02.11.2014?
25.1. Sri. S. Sriranga submitted that the initial rate of
water supply was Rs.30/- (or Rs.36/-) per Kilo
Litre. In January 2013, without prior notice or
authorisation, the rate was increased to Rs.60/-
per Kilo Litre. The formal notification revising
the tariff was issued only on 01.11.2014,
effective from 02.11.2014. Therefore, the
charging of Rs.60/- per KL prior to 02.11.2014
was without authorisation. The excess amount
collected, amounting to Rs.1,01,91,510/-, is
liable to be refunded.
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
25.2. Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that the tariff was
revised to Rs.60/- per KL from 12.02.2013 by a
valid notification, which has not been
challenged by the Petitioner. Without such a
challenge, the question of refund does not
arise. He further submitted that under Section
16, the Board is empowered to vary rates from
time to time, and the revision was within the
Board's powers.
25.3. The Petitioner's claim for refund of
Rs.1,01,91,510/- is based on the contention
that the water tariff was increased from Rs.36/-
to Rs.60/- per KL without authorisation prior to
the notification dated 01.11.2014.
25.4. The Respondents' contention is that the tariff
was revised from 12.02.2013 by a valid
notification. Sri. Ravi B. Naik has specifically
submitted that the revision was made from
12.02.2013, and the Petitioner has not
challenged this specific revision. The Petitioner,
instead of challenging the tariff revision of
12.02.2013 within the statutory period under
Section 120 of the BWSS Act, continued to pay
the revised tariff. The Petitioner paid the
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
revised rate from 2013 to 2014 without protest
through any statutory mechanism.
25.5. Section 16 of the BWSS Act empowers the
Board to vary rates "from time to time." The
Board's power to revise tariff is a continuing
power. If the tariff was revised from
12.02.2013, as contended by the Respondents,
that revision was within the Board's powers.
The Petitioner's contention that the revision
was authorised only from 02.11.2014 is not
supported by adequate material. The
correspondence on record shows that the
Petitioner wrote letters questioning the rate
increase but did not file a statutory appeal
under Section 120 within the prescribed time of
sixty days.
25.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer's
case [supra] held that rates are a matter of
legislative judgment. The tariff fixed by the
Board, acting under its statutory powers, is not
amenable to challenge under Article 226 on the
ground of reasonableness. The Petitioner,
having subscribed to the service and availed
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
the water supply, cannot contend that the rates
are not fair.
25.7. Furthermore, even assuming that there is a
dispute regarding the exact date of the
authorisation for the tariff revision, this is
precisely the kind of factual dispute that should
have been raised before the statutory appellate
authority under Section 120 of the BWSS Act.
The existence of an alternative statutory
remedy for resolving such factual disputes is a
further reason why this Court ought not to
entertain this claim in writ jurisdiction. The
Petitioner has not produced any material before
this Court to conclusively establish that the
revision from 12.02.2013, as contended by the
Respondents, was without authority.
25.8. In view of the above, I answer Point No. (vii) by
holding that the Petitioner has not made out a
case for refund or adjustment of
Rs.1,01,91,510/-.
General Directions:
26. In view of the issues noticed above concerning
inconsistencies between statutory provisions and
information hosted on official websites, this Court
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
considers it appropriate to issue structured directions
to ensure uniform standards across all Government
Departments.
27. The Principal Secretary, Department of e-
Governance, shall, within a period of three months,
formulate a comprehensive policy governing the
publication, verification, and maintenance of content
on official websites of all Government Departments,
Boards, Corporations, and statutory authorities.
28. The policy shall provide for a system of prior legal
vetting before uploading any document that:
28.1. Relates to statutory rights or obligations;
28.2. Prescribes fees, charges, classifications,
penalties, or entitlements; or
28.3. Interprets or explains any provision of an Act,
Rule, or Regulation.
29. The policy shall mandate clear segregation and
labelling of:
29.1. Statutory provisions (Acts, Rules, Regulations,
Notifications);
29.2. Government Orders and Circulars;
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
29.3. Administrative guidelines or informational
material; and
29.4. Citizen charters or facilitative documents.
30. Each category shall be clearly marked so that a
layperson can distinguish between binding law and
explanatory material.
31. The policy shall require that every informational or
explanatory document hosted on official websites
carry a standardised disclaimer stating that in the
event of any inconsistency, the relevant statutory
provisions shall prevail.
32. The policy shall provide for:
32.1. Annual digital content audits by each
Department;
32.2. Certification by the Head of the Department
that the website content is updated and
consistent with current law; and
32.3. A system of version control and archival
tracking.
33. The policy shall identify:
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
33.1. The designated officer responsible for website
content in each Department;
33.2. A defined protocol for correction of errors; and
33.3. Timelines for rectification once discrepancies
are noticed.
34. The Department of e-Governance shall also
incorporate provisions for training nodal officers in:
34.1. Digital content governance;
34.2. Legal sensitivity in public communication; and
34.3. Standards of accuracy and public
accountability.
35. The policy shall include a structured mechanism
enabling citizens to report discrepancies between
website content and statutory provisions, with
mandatory timelines for response.
36. Upon formulation of the policy, the Secretary,
Department of e-Governance, shall place on record
before this Court a compliance report indicating:
36.1. The policy framed;
36.2. The timeline for implementation; and
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
36.3. The steps taken to communicate and
operationalise the same across all
Departments.
37. The Court makes it clear that digital platforms are
not merely administrative conveniences but
constitute official representations to the public.
Uniform standards of accuracy and accountability are
therefore essential to uphold transparency, reduce
litigation, and protect citizens from avoidable
confusion. The above directions are issued to ensure
systemic reform rather than case-specific correction.
38. I answer Point No. (viii): What order?
38.1. Under Point No.(i), it has been held that the
Petitioner has not made out a case for a
declaration that it is not liable to pay pro-rata
charges. The levy is mandated by Section 16 of
the BWSS Act, upheld by the Division Bench in
Muniswami, and is not excluded by the
agreement dated 06.05.2004 or Regulation 54.
38.2. Under Point No.(ii), it has been held that the
communications dated 18.02.2016 and
02.04.2016 are not without authority of law
and are not liable to be quashed.
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
38.3. Under Point No.(iii), it has been held that the
Respondents are legally entitled to levy pro-
rata charges upon the Petitioner.
38.4. Under Point No.(iv), it has been held that the
classification as commercial and the rate of
Rs.600/- per square metre is legally
sustainable.
38.5. Under Point No.(v), it has been held that
consolidated pro-rata charges towards both
water and sewerage components are
permissible.
38.6. Under Point No.(vi), it has been held that the
demand at the rates prevailing at the time of
the demand is enforceable.
38.7. Under Point No.(vii), it has been held that the
Petitioner is not entitled to refund or
adjustment of Rs.1,01,91,510/-.
38.8. In view of the findings and conclusions under
Points No.(i) to (vii), I pass the following:
- 108 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
WP No. 22615 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition No.22615 of 2016 is
dismissed.
ii. All the prayers of the Petitioner are declined.
iii. The prayer for a declaration that the Petitioner
is not liable to pay pro-rata charges is rejected.
iv. The prayer to quash the communication dated
18.02.2016 bearing No.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)-
III/DCE(M)-I/TA(M)-III 14483/15-16
(Annexure-P) and the communication dated
02.04.2016 bearing
No.BWSSB/EIC/CE(M)/ACE(M)-III/DCE(M)-
1/TA(M)-10/83/2015-16 (Annexure-Q) is
rejected.
v. The prayer for refund or adjustment of
Rs.1,01,91,510/- is rejected.
vi. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to
approach the statutory appellate authority
under Section 120 of the BWSS Act for any
grievance relating to the computation or
quantum of pro-rata charges, within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified
- 109 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12017
HC-KAR
copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed
within the said period, the appellate authority
shall consider and dispose of the same on
merits in accordance with law, without raising
any objection on the ground of limitation.
vii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
viii. Though the above matter is disposed relist on
04.06.2026 for reporting Compliance. Learned
AGA is directed to inform the Principal
Secretary, e-Governance about the above
directions. The registry is directed to print the
name of AGA in the cause list to enable
reporting compliance.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR,LN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 76
