High Court Backs BWSSB in ₹12 Crore Water Charge Row, Rejects Jain International School Petition
Bengaluru:
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a demand notice issued by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) imposing over ₹12 crore as pro-rata water charges on Jain International Residential School, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the institution challenging the levy.
Background of the Case
The residential school, located in Kanakapura taluk, had approached BWSSB in 2004 seeking bulk water supply after its borewell water was found unfit for drinking. The government approved the supply of 9 lakh litres of water per day.
The school paid ₹93 lakh towards laying the water pipeline, and a formal agreement was signed between the two parties on May 6, 2004.
However, following a revision of water tariffs in 2016, BWSSB issued a demand notice directing the school to pay ₹4.32 crore as pro-rata charges and an additional ₹8.64 crore as supplementary pro-rata charges — totalling over ₹12 crore. The Board also warned that the water connection would be disconnected if the amount was not paid.
Challenging the demand notices dated February 18 and April 2, 2016, the school filed Writ Petition No. 22615/2016 before the High Court.
The institution argued that:
It was not liable to pay pro-rata charges. The February and April 2016 demand notices should be quashed. ₹1.01 crore allegedly collected as “additional charges” prior to November 2, 2014 should be refunded.
The High Court rejected all major contentions raised by the petitioner and ruled in favour of BWSSB.
The Court held that under Section 16 of the BWSSB Act, the Board has full authority to levy pro-rata charges. Even though an agreement was executed in 2004, it cannot override statutory provisions. The Court clarified that water tariff classification under law recognises only two categories — residential and non-residential/commercial. There is no separate category for educational institutions. The Bench noted that the petitioner itself had described its premises as a “commercial complex”, weakening its claim.
The Court further observed that merely because the Board had not collected pro-rata charges earlier, it does not lose its statutory right to impose them subsequently.
Dismissing the writ petition in full, the High Court upheld the BWSSB’s demand notices and rejected the school’s claim for refund of ₹1.01 crore.
However, the Court granted limited liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 120 of the Act, if there are any discrepancies in the mathematical computation of the charges.