IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.62 OF 2001 M/s.Gandhi Tape Works ..... Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..... Respondent Mr.Anil C. Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.M.N.Gaikwad, for the respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1. The demand notice issued by the respondent-Corporation dated 11-02-2000 which is at Annexure A in the compilation, is the subject matter of this writ petition. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner has been given water connection facilities by the respondent-corporation at the premises in question and is paying regular water charges in connection with the consumption of water. The water connection which is given to the petitioner is having Code No. T-173000 (EO-74-04). According to the petitioner, the impugned demand notice was sent to the petitioner on the ground that the industry of the petitioner was located in a non-conforming 2 zone and in view of the same, the water charges were revised with effect from 01-04-1996, the petitioner's industry will be charged at the rate of Rs.44/- per thousand litres of water by the respondent-corporation. According to the petitioner, the rate was revised from March 2000 and supplementary bill was issued with effect from 01-04-1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that without giving any opportunity of being heard, straight away this demand notice has been issued to the petitioner. 2. The respondent-corporation has not filed any reply challenging the averments made by the petitioner in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that before asking the petitioner to make the payment in connection with the difference of water charges on the basis of the revised bill, the petitioner was not given any hearing by the respondent- corporation. The Corporation has tried to send supplementary bill with effect from 01-04-1996. The petitioner has already made payment subject to his rights and contentions as per earlier order passed by this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation. In our view, when the respondent-corporation has tried to send a revised bill for a period between 1996 to 2000, for which the bill was sent in the year 2000, at least the petitioner was required to be heard as to why the said amount should not 3 be charged from him retrospectively. By the impugned order, the petitioner is required to pay substantial amount from the year 1996 and the Corporation was at least required to follow the principles of natural justice by giving hearing to the petitioner and asking him to show cause as to why the water charges should not be revised retrospectively from the year 1996. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- corporation has not conceded for setting aside the impugned demand notice, but in our view, demand in question has been made without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-corporation to pass afresh orders in this behalf after hearing the petitioner. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue and the respondent-corporation shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law on its own merits. It will be open to the respondent-corporation to take the decision expeditiously in this behalf after hearing the petitioner and may pass appropriate order. Till such representation is decided by the respondent-corporation, the amount which has been paid by the petitioner, shall remain to continue with the respondent-corporation. However, such deposit will be subject to the ultimate decision taken by the Corporation on the representation of the petitioner. 4. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent-corporation 4 not to act on the basis of the demand notice till the appropriate hearing is given to the petitioner in this behalf. The petitioner is directed to file reply within four weeks from today and on the receipt of the said reply, the respondent-corporation shall pass fresh order in accordance with law. If any information is required to be obtained from the petitioner, the respondent-corporation can take information from the petitioner in this behalf. If the ultimate decision is against the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The decision taken by the respondent-corporation may be communicated to the petitioner without further delay and such decision may not be given effect to, for a period of one week from the date of such communication. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )