CWP No.1422 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 1422 of 2008 Date of decision 1 .2.2008 Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health, Sub Division No.5, Sector 32, Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing order dated 11.9.2007 ( Annexure P.4) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) whereby the petitioner has been directed to release/ change water connection in the name of respondent no.2 and charge him the water rate at domestic rate from the date of its inception. A further direction has also been issued by the Lok Adalat to the petitioner that the excess charges paid by respondent no.2 at commercial rate be refunded to him by way of adjustment in the future bills. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.9.2006, Union Territory Administration issued notification no. 5958 wherein it was provided that the defaulting consumers who have not obtained the completion certificate from the Estate Office (either as a Society or individually) or have not got their Water Supply connection regularised/ approved from the competent authority shall be charged at commercial rate. Respondent no.2 who is CWP No.1422 of 2008 2 G.P.A. Holder is occupying Flat No. 667 in the Society and has not got the completion/occupancy certificate from the Estate Office. Therefore, respondent no.2 was liable to be charged water tariff at commercial rates in view of the notification dated 28.9.2006. Respondent no.2 filed an application No.71 of 2007 ( Annexure P.1) for settlement of dispute under Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. In the said application respondent no.2 also stated that he has submitted an affidavit/ no objection of Shri Rakesh Mehta, original allottee on 24.12.2001 in giving water meter/ connection in his name. The petitioner filed reply on 5.7.2007 ( Annexure P.2) alleging that it is a irregular water supply connection and charges are being raised in the name of the consumer against the flat as there is no record of the allottees. It was also stated that commercial tariff is being charged as the society has not got the completion/occupancy certificate from the Estate Office. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel that the observation of the Permanent Lok Adalat that the premises occupied by the applicant is domestic and therefore the water supply is required to be charged at the rate meant for domestic use is in contravention of Clause (xi) of Bye Law 13 of the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye Laws and is not sustainable. The penultimate para of the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 reads as under: “ On the second point, it is accepted on behalf of the respondent that meeting of Finance and Contract Committee held on 9.5.2007, it has been decided that water connections be allowed to GPA holders. That being so, the applicant who is a GPA holder of Rakesh Mehta, the original allottee, is entitled to the release of water connection in his name. It is all the more so CWP No.1422 of 2008 3 when Rakesh Mehta has given affidavit in favour of the applicant and the society also released physical possession of the flat to the applicant, the copies of these documents are on record. The applicant is already getting electricity from the Electricity Department of Union Territory, Chandigarh in his own name and that too at domestic rate.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and no interference of this Court is warranted. When the respondent- Administration is supplying electricity to respondent no.2 on domestic rate then there is no justification for the Administration in denying him water connection on domestic rate. Apart from this the Finance and Contract Committee in its meeting held on 9.5.2007 has decided that water connections be allowed to GPA holders. The respondent no.2 is admittedly GPA holder. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 1.2.2008 Judge okg