IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 7416 OF 1987 DATE OF DECISION : 11-08-2008 Chaman Lal ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Anupam Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Sahu, DAG, Punjab for respondents 1 and 2 01- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2- To be referred to the reporters or not? 3- Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 25-06-1987 whereby the monthly rates for sewerage charges have been decided to be made equal to the water rates for that period. The arguments of Mr.Jain are that this enhancement is arbitrary; that no hearing was granted to the petitioner before amendment; that the respondents cannot convert this essential service into an income generating scheme; that before the impugned notification was issued by the administrator, the elected committee had, on the objections of the residents of Barnala rejected this proposal, and lastly, that because of this amendment the increase in sewerage charges would be of such an order that it would discourage people from getting sewerage connections. In the written statement filed by Municipal Committee-respondent No.2, it has been pointed out that a project of water supply and sewerage cost about Rs.1 crore out of which 2/3rd amount has been taken as loan, on which interest as per the current CWP 7416 of 1987 --2-- rates @ 6% per annum is applicable. As per the current rates, even the interest amount cannot be recovered. It is further mentioned that the amendment has been incorporated after inviting objections and after considering the same. It is further urged that in most Municipal Committees of Punjab, the same formula for charging sewerage charges is enforced. In my opinion, this petition must fail. No person can claim that such services as sewerage and water supply should be subsidized to such an extent that less than 10% of the interest amount can also not be recovered. The respondents have successfully shown that the amendment was made after inviting objections and considering the same and also that it is uniformally applicable in the State. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed without, however, any costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 11-08-2008 mandeepkaur