THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.23509 OF 2011 Dated: 22.12.2011 Between: Ch.Bhupal Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.23509 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus to set aside the statements/customer ledgers provided to the petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents to collect the water consumption charges by providing proper and correct statement basing on the meter reading of the petitioner. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a resident of HMT Society, Shapurnagar Village, Qutubullapur Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. He is the absolute owner and possessor of his house and after making construction as per the norms and conditions imposed by the Municipality, he had applied for domestic water connection from the 2nd respondent-Board and thereafter, he had allotted connection No.612289064. The petitioner was paying the charges for usage of drinking water as demanded by the 2nd respondent, which was initially collected at Rs.95/- per connection which is minimum charge and as per the usage, he is bound to pay extra amount other than that amount as per the meter reading fixed by the 2nd respondent. It is to be noted that as on today, no meters are fixed in petitioner’s locality. However, the 2nd respondent had enhanced the amount of usage charges of drinking water from Rs.95/- to 135/- per connection. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued a demand notice to the petitioner in the month of December, 2010 and enhanced the amount from Rs.108/- to Rs.992/- and showing the details of usage of water has been increased abruptly from 16 KL to 120 KL. The 2nd respondent- Board had stated in the customer ledgers submitted to the petitioner that he is having number of flats in his residential house, which is not correct. It is a residential house with small rental portions with 1 to 2 rooms whereas the consumption of the water has not increased as stated by the respondents as the size of the water pipe is only nearly 15 to 20 mm and there is only single connection to the house of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner made a representation under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter dated 12.07.2011 and the same was received by the 2nd respondent- Board. On receipt of the said representation, the 2nd respondent-Board had given reply dated 06.08.2011 and enclosed the said customer ledger, which is being challenged before this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had paid the complete bill from December, 2010 till June, 2011 which is totalling to Rs.9,244.25. Subsequently, another demand notice dated 08.06.2011 has been sent to him and again he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.992/- whereas the usage of water in units is shown as 16 KL for the month of May, 2011, but the customer ledger shows the units of usage as 120 KL, which is contrary to each other. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay as per the meter reading if at all meters are fixed by the 2nd respondent-Board. Now the 2nd respondent –Board was pressurizing him to pay the amount as demanded in the demand notice, in failure to do so, the 2nd respondent is trying to disconnect their water lines. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the 2nd respondent- Board had issued B.P.No.121, Administrative (A) Wing dated 14.12.2006 published in the A.P.Gazette, Part-II extraordinary, dated 29.12.2006 levying minimum charges to multistoried complexes and other categories, revising water rates, tariffs, fees, deposits and other charges and the same came into force with effect from 01.01.2007. As per rates fixed by the above said Board Proceedings, the water supply charges are being collected from the petitioner as his building comes under category – I (c) and as such, there is no irregularity or illegality in issuing demand notice to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner had constructed a multistoried building (residential complex) with Ground plus three floors with eight portions in the above said premises building, and hence, the case of the petitioner comes under category I (c). The 2nd respondent- Board had issued proceedings No.121, dated 14.12.2006 with regard to the customers those who are not having water meters. The 2nd respondent – Board had issued a demand notice to the petitioner in the month of December, 2010, enhancing the amount from minimum charges i.e., Rs.108/- to Rs.992/- as there are eight flats as per the Board proceedings dated 14.12.2006. As stated above, as the petitioner comes under category – I (c), the 2nd respondent- Board issued demand notices in accordance with the above B.P. It is stated that the responsibility of fixing water meters lies on the customers as per Section 36 of the Board Act. Even now the minimum charges are being levied to the petitioner’s residential complex @ Rs.90/- per month per flat plus sewerage cess @ 35% and service charges of Rs.20/- per bill. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner’s does not fall under B.P.No.121, Administrative (A) Wing, dated 14.12.2006 as it is not a residential apartment so as to collect Rs.90/- from each plot; that therefore, levying of Rs.90/- for each residential portion is not in accordance with law and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner constructed a multi storied building (residential complex) with ground plus three floors with eight portions; that therefore, the case of the petitioner falls under category I (c) of the Gazette notification and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned notice. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that in the beginning an amount of Rs.95/- is being charged for each flat. But the customer ledgers would go to show that they are charging Rs.90/- for each plot. It is not in dispute before this Court that under Section 8 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1989, the authority has power to levy the rate of fee/tax etc. The authorities issued proceedings in B.P.No.121, Administrative (A) Wing, dated 14.12.2006 published in the A.P. Gazette Part-II extraordinary dated 29.12.2006 levying minimum charges to multi storied complexes and other categories, revising water rates, tariffs, fees, deposits and other charges which shall come into effect from 01.01.2007. As seen from this, the case of the petitioner falls under category I (c) which shows that in case of customer under category-I where the complex consists of five or more residential apartments as indicated in the plan approved by the MCH/Municipality and the approval is for a Residential Complex or Commercial-cum-residential Complex, the rate is fixed at Rs.90/- per month per flat. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the property in question is not a residential apartment, the said proceedings are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner constructed a multistoried building (residential complex) with ground plus three floors with eight portions. So, the petitioner has to pay the water charges for each portion. Therefore, the case of the petitioner would fall under category I (c). However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are not fixing the meters so that the actual consumption water would be known to the 2nd respondent. But learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the responsibility of fixing water meters lies on the customers. Therefore, the petitioner while fixing the water meter to the house, shall duly inform the same to the 2nd respondent, so that the actual consumption of water would be charged by the 2nd respondent. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings and the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 22nd December, 2011 Ivd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.23509 OF 2011 22nd December, 2011 Ivd