upa 1 rpw-l-57-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO. 57 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2010 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 542 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2010 REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO. 57 OF 2010 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ) and others ).. Petitioners Versus Chittaranjan Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ) and others ).. Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 542 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2010 Chittaranjan Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ) and another ).. Petitoners Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ) and others ).. Respondents Mrs. V.S. Gharpure a/w Mrs.Geeta Joglekar i/b.V.K. Khatu and others for the Municipal Corporation. Mrs. N.V. Sanglikar for the society. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22 , 2010 upa 2 rpw-l-57-10 P. C. : By our order dated 2nd August 2010, we had noted that the Municipal Corporation was objecting to supplying separate water meter to the petitioner society on the ground that there were outstanding dues. Since there was a dispute about the charges being levied by the Corporation, particularly the rates at which the charges were being levied, we had disposed of Writ Petition No.1133 of 2010 with a direction that subject to the petitioner society depositing with the Municipal Corporation a sum of Rs.25 lakhs without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the Municipal Corporation shall provide separate water connection and install separate meter for the petitioner society within two weeks from the date of deposit of 50% of the said amount by the petitioner society and the second installment was also to be paid thereafter. 2. The Court is informed that in compliance with the above order, the society has paid all the outstanding dues without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation has already provided separate water connection and separate water meter for the petitioner society. 4. The learned counsel for the society, however, does not accept the above statement and further submits that the petitioner society has prayed in this notice of motion that the petitioners had already applied to provide individual water meters and separate water connection to each of the members of the petitioner society in terms of the sanction upa 3 rpw-l-57-10 dated 13th December 2004 and 13th July 2007 of the Municipal Corporation. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the society has relied upon the said sanction letter dated 13th December 2004 at Exhibit A-1 and the letter dated 13th July 2007 as Exhibit C to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. 5. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, however, submits that the sanction granted on 13th July 2007 has lapsed as the petitioner society did not comply with the conditions mentioned in the said sanction letter. 6. The learned counsel for the society disputes the above assertion made on behalf of the Corporation and submits that 98 separate applications in P form were given to the Corporation and thereafter the sanction letter was issued. 7. It appears that the Municipal Corporation now seeks to contend that the sanction granted on 13th July 2007 cannot be said to be operating and that the petitioner society must apply for sanction afresh for separate water connection and separate water meter to each tenement in the petitioner society. It is submitted that one such condition is that the completion of work of laying down pipe lines as per the specifications should be certified by a licensed plumber and jointly signed completion form by the owners of tenements and licensed plumber which is prime essential for granting individual water connection. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner society points out to the the lay out of water mains approved by the Executive Engineer W.W. (P&R) Water Supply of the respondent corporation on 6th May 2003 and upa 4 rpw-l-57-10 states that it was as per the said approved lay out that the pipe lines were actually laid and therefore there is no question of requiring the petitioners time and again to provide such certificate. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the respondent Municipal Corporation to act on the basis of the sanction letters dated 13th December 2004, Exhibit A-1 and 13th July 2007, Exhibit C to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. 10. Our order dated 2nd August 2010 disposing of the writ petition, shall be read in light of the clarifications or modifications made by this order. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation prays for stay of operation of this order for some time. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no justification for granting the stay as prayed for. Request is, therefore, rejected. 13. Review Petition as well as the Notice of Motion stand disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.