1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 309 OF 1998 AND WRIT PETITION NO.310 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO. 309 OF 1998 1. Shri Krishnakumar G. Agrawal, residing at Krishnakunj, Varde, Valaulikar Road, Margao, Goa. 2. Mrs. Nayantara G. Agrawal, residing at Krishnakunj, Varde Valaulikar Road, Margao, Goa. 3. M/s. Kayji Polymers, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, with its Office at Curti, Ponda, Goa. All represented in this act by its duly constituted Attorney Mr. Devidas S. Kudchadkar, residing at Curchorem, Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Goa, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, with office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Works Div.III, Ponda, Goa. 4. Dy. Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer, Ponda, Goa. 5. The Mamlatdar of Ponda, with office at Ponda, Goa. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 310 OF 1998 1. Mr. Nanda Sadashiva Naique Counto, residing at 503, Gurudatta Apts, M. G. Road, Panjim, Goa. 2. Mrs. Nutan Counto, Wife of Nanda S. N. Counto, Residing at 503, Gurudatta Apts., M. G. Road, Panjim, Goa. 3. M/s. Alcon Developers, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1956 with its Registered Office at 1st Floor Sukerkar Mansion, M. G. Road, Panaji, Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Goa, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 3 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department with office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Works Div.III, Ponda, Goa. 4. Dy. Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ponda, Goa. 5. The Mamlatdar of Ponda, with office at Ponda, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Karpe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT(Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J.) The Petitioners are carrying on business and for the purpose of their business had requested for supply of water and pursuant to the said request water meters were installed at the subject premises. The Respondents sent various bills 4 of demands towards water charges. The Petitioners were in arrears. The Respondents had to disconnect the water supply which gave rise to these petitions. The Respondents have charged interest at the rate of 10% per month on the amount of arrears of bills and thus raised a claim against the Petitioners. 2. By an interim order restoration of water supply was ordered subject to the condition that the Petitioners deposit the amount of arrears of bills in this Court. The amount came to be deposited and thereafter the water supply has been restored. 3. During the pendency of the petitions, one more development took place and the same relates to passing of an order by this Court directing the Respondents to consider the representation made by the Petitioners objecting to the amount of arrears of the bills towards water supply charges. This Court directed Respondent No.1 to consider the representation and pass an order on the same. It is an admitted position that the representation moved by the Petitioners has been rejected by Orders dated 22-3-2006. The Order rejecting the representations have also been challenged in the present petitions mainly on the ground that the impugned order is devoid of any reasons and passed in breach of principle of natural justice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Perusal of the orders reveal that the same are devoid of any reason and affords no opportunity of judicial review thereof. 5 4. The learned Advocate General per contra submits that in the scheme of the Act no personal hearing is contemplated. However, he has no objection to pass an order in the present petitions directing an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners in support of the representation that they have already made. In all fairness he also does not oppose the request made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners to file additional submissions in support of their representations. 5. In view of the concession made by the learned Advocate General for the Respondents, we dispose of these petitions by setting aside the order rejecting the representations moved by the Petitioners with a further direction to the Secretary of Respondent No.1 to hear the Petitioners touching the representation made by them and then pass a reasoned order. Needless to mention that the contentions raised in these petitions touching the merits are kept open to be raised in the event the representation made by the Petitioners is rejected, and the Petitioners are required to file a fresh petition questioning the legality thereof. 6. It shall be open for Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount deposited by the Petitioners in this Court and in the event if the Petitioners succeed they shall be entitled to the refund of the amount together with the interest accrued. 7. Before we part with these petitions it would not be out of place to 6 mention that the Goa Provision of Water Supply Act, 2003 has been brought into effect from 22-7-2003. Section 5 of the Act lays down that the bill amount in respect of the water consumed shall be worked out in the prescribed manner and any claim or dispute in respect thereof shall also be resolved by the prescribed officers in the prescribed manner. “Prescribed” has been defined so as to mean prescribed by the rules made under the Act. It is thus clear that the bill amount is required to be worked out in the manner prescribed under the rules and any claim or dispute in respect thereof is to be resolved by the prescribed officer named in the rules. The difficulties that are being faced are on account of failure to frame rules. Though a period of five years has lapsed from bringing in force the Act, the rules are not yet framed. The learned Advocate General for the State makes a statement that Draft Rules are ready and appropriate steps are being taken to frame the rules. 8. In the light of the above observations the representation of the Petitioners shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. 9. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD