AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B M Shyam Prasad, J
The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of a residential property within the Ward No.184 [new Ward No.202], Spoorthi Nagara, Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru [subject property], and the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 28.02.2024 issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP. The petitioner contends that he has been residing in the subject property for the last ten years, the BBMP has ensured water connection to his property after due sanction and permission, but the impugned notice is issued threatening stoppage of water supply without due opportunity.
Sri Madhukar Nadig, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The second respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 28.02.2024 addressed to the residents of the properties in Ward No.202 to disconnect the water supply obtained from the 'Main Line' with immediate effect and secure the connection from the 'Service Line'. The terms of this notice read as under:
The petitioner, who asserts that there is necessary accord and sanction for water service and has been utilizing the water supplied by the respondents for over ten years, has not placed on record any material to demonstrate the necessary sanction. In fact, when queried, Sri Madhukar Nadig submits that every month a sum of Rs.100/- is charged by the officials of the BBMP, but he is unable to place on record immediately any bill/receipt in this regard.
Crucially, it is seen that the second respondent has issued the impugned notice not for complete disruption of water connection but calling upon the residents [like the petitioner] to avail such connection from a 'Service Line' instead of availing the same from 'Main Line'. The petitioner pursuant to the notice would be entitled to produce all the documents to justify the continuance of the connection from the 'Main Line', or in the alternative to request for some time until alternative arrangement is made. Therefore, there is no reason for interference in the present petition.
At this stage, Sri Madhukar Nadig submits that this Court must protect the petitioner's interest until such time the second respondent considers the petitioner's representation. This request is considered in the light of the fact that the impugned notice, which is for the reason as aforesaid, does not impute any wrong doing in obtaining any connection from 'Main Line'. As such, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to defer disconnection unless the petitioner's representation is considered in a time bound manner. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his response to the impugned notice dated 28.02.2024 with all the documents along with the sanction order and bills issued by the competent authority.
[b] This representation shall be filed, enclosing a certified copy of this order, within the next seven days and the second respondent shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order within a week thereafter.
[c] The second respondent, until the decision as aforesaid, shall not take any coercive measures to deny the supply of water to the petitioner's premises.