AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.B. Vishwanath, J.—Heard both Counsel.
In these Writ Petitions filed by five petitioners they have prayed that each is entitled to free allowance of 25,000 litres of water in view of Regulation 36 of the Bangalore Water Supply Regulations 1966, which says that:
"When the premises, enumerated in Clauses (a) to (j) are assessed to property tax by the Corporation
Consumption
Rate per 1,000 liters
Up to 25,000 liters
Free, so far as the consumer is concerned. But the Corporation of the City of Bangalore have to bear the cost of water supply with regard to free allowance in respect of each domestic connection at a minimum demand of Rs.50/- per connection per month.
Above 25,000 liters up to 50,000 liters
.. Rs.0.40 paise per 1,000 liters
Above 50,000 liters up to 75,000 liters
.. Rs.0.75 paise per 1,000 liters
Above 75,000 liters up to 1,00,000 liters
.. Rs.1.25 paise per 1,000 liters
Above 1,00,000 liters
.. Rs.1.75 paise per 1,OO0 liters
(The calculations will be rounded of to the nearest five paise)
Notes:
These rates will apply only to one water supply connection from the main line, for each premises assessed to property tax by the Bangalore City Corporation."
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the definition of Building'' as per Section 2(3) of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1964. He also took me through the definition ''Premises'' as per Section 2(15) of the aforesaid Act and submitted that each of the 97 apartments was entitled to free allowance of water to the extent of 25,000 litres.
The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that each of the 97 apartments was assessed separately by the Corporation.
Now the points for consideration are-
(1) Whether the owner of each apartment is entitled for free allowance of 25,000 litres of water?
(2) Whether all the 97 apartments constitute one premises?
(3) If so, whether all the apartments are entitled to free allowance of only 25,000 litres of water?
Regulation 14 of the Regulations 1965, in so far as it is relevant for our present purpose says, that no premises shall have more than one water connection.
The main thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that 97 apartments constitute 97 different premises, and not one premises. He stressed the fact that each apartment is separately assessed by the Corporation. In my opinion the fact that each, apartment is separately assessed by the Corporation is not relevant to decide whether all the 97 apartments constitute one premises or not.
It is clear from the material on record that one plan was sanctioned in respect of all the 97 apartments. All the apartments have been constructed on one site.
For the aforesaid reasons I am of opinion that all the 97 apartments constitute one premises.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that each apartment owner was entitled free allowance of 25,000 litres of water, in view of Regulation No. 36. Regulation No. 36 contains Note No. 2. It says:
"In cases, where additional water supply connections from the main line are given to a single premises, which is assessed to property tax by the Bangalore City Corporation, the additional water supply connections for domestic use will be charged as above, without any free allowance from the corporation."
This provision clearly says that even if more than one water connection is given to one premises free allowance of water upto 25,000 litres if allowed in respect of one connection. The other connections are not entitled to free allowances of 25,000 litres of water.
It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there are no additional connections but there is only one connection.
This argument has no force in view of the fact that all the apartments constitute only one premises.
For the aforesaid reasons the Writ Petitions are rejected. No costs.