I IN THE HI3H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 18th day of June, 1998 Before: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V, RAVEENDRAN Writ Petition No, 29418 of 1993 M/s, Hotel Tourist, Race Course Road, Anandarao Circle, Bangalore — 560 009, by its Managing Partner Sri P. Vadiraja Rao •.Petitioner (By Sri Udaya Holla, Advocate) 1. Assistant Executive Engineer (water Works) Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chikkalalbagh, Bangalore; 2. Internal Auditor, Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore — 560 009; 3. Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Baigalore—560 009 ..Respondents (By Sri M.V. Seshachala, Advocate) Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the 2nd respondent’s report bearing No.BWSSB/A.O(R)/3/ DGN/AEHT/93—94 dated 26—6—93 at Annexure—P. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:— . . .2 S 2- QSSaLS The petitioner i.. a consumer of water suppi ad b> the Banjalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Petitioner is charged or th wait r supplied as per the readings recorded in the meter installed in the petitioner’s premises According to petitioner, the charges for the water supplied was being paid regularly. According to tin petitioner, in fac. it wa: getting water by tanks from outide sources also. Whin matter stood thus, ar the a bills for July 1993 and August 1993 fAnnexure-K and Mi in addition to the regular charges for water consumed, the Board ‘aimed s.42,9tO/- as •r. audit sh’rt claim for the ç.eriod April 1991 to June 199, as per Audit Report dated 26-6-1993. When he petitioner objected to the demand fr Rs.42910/-, a copy of the titernal Auditor’rs Report dat°d 2r6 993 (Annex re P3 wao furnishc.cI i. ‘hg, petitioner. It is stated tnat he aforebaid claim has been repeated in the subsequent. bille. It is srnecessary to refer to them as ‘he demand is a mere reiteration of th earlier demand. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the Internal Auditor’s repoit — —- - — —— —. - dated 266-199d [Annexure—PJ ad qusbng of tee ierrand tor Re 4291O/ in nnexure—K and M, ie prsuarce of th said udtt report. 2 It is admtt d by the reond nt th betcr taking the said dean f pmant f R42,91O/ petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause The audit report was eIc: rot ftrnished at that stage. It was furnished eubsequent to the petitioner objectiu to the demand. In the oiroumstaice, he demand for R42 91O/ ha t be itad down as propoal to claim the said sum on dcrunt of earlier short. claims and the petitioner shouLd be given an oppo tunity to file detailed objections and then the Board shouli take a decision on the demand to b made in accordanee with law. If it is ir read down, it have to e stuk down as bting opposed to pr inc iples of natural jut ice, ‘3, The learned Counsel to the Board submitted that the petitioner h on alterrat’’ae rerredy by way of a al under thr Act ad h pet itio ba ot exhausted I. e aic remedy, before filing this petition. When the demand is opposed to principles of natural justice and d CJA wher th petition is pendingLfor mee1 five y—ars the rr xitenc of an alternative remedy dli nct be a hir c fle ma’ inibi t th riL petition. In the 1r umtanoe , pet inn 1 allowed and the iils snt in Ju’y and Augost 1993 [Annexur e K & M] in c fa as they relate to the short claim of Re, 42 9 O/’ relating re per -‘ t om April 1991 to Jun 1993 is reid a. a provisinal )rdar n the bai i’ f the r p ‘it Anneyure P. propo sing to r cover t h rJ run. Thc p t it ion r is permitted to file additional bction’ t. he demand in cent 1 nation of the earl obeti )ne dcd ed al ‘7 lP3 within cne aonth ti’u’ I The respondi rta shall consider sncF oh.ci ane and Us app opri ‘e orde’’ “ rga 3 t the cirim in are rdrn;e witn jaw Till hen ecver> ci the o rt shall ot t ento’aJ nd th€ wat’r ya 1 y o t h 75 1 d fo roray th a J m Ar>’ amount I het is dep ted by tha neti tione in purar e of the ineriri rrder , he dealt with with the Unal o3rn to be passd b> Board Sd/ 1*