1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.9781 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 Premier Products Private Limited, Rep.by its Senior Esecutive, V.S.Sivarama Krishnan, R.S.No.522, Ramachandrapuram Village, Pazhayakayal, Thoothukudi District 628 152. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 1st and 2nd respondents in their proceeding in B.P.Ms.No.115 (0 and m wing) dated 20.12.2006 and Lr.No.2276/JDO 2/F water charges/10 dated 20.10.2010 by enhancing the water consumption charge from Rs.15/- per kilo Litre to Rs.60/ per kilo litre to the Petitioner Company quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to collect the water charges for the actual reading consumed by the petitioner company at every month. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For Respondents : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition challenging the levy of water charges by the respondents. 2.Heard Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Porkodikarnan, learned counsel for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The petitioner applied for a water connection to their premises, where the quarters of the workman of the petitioner is located. A technical sanction was ordered on 01.04.1986, followed by an agreement dated 11.07.1986 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. As per the agreement, the respondents have been supplying water and the petitioner has been making payment. There were no disputes between the parties for a period of nearly 20 years from the date of the agreement. 4.But the respondents issued an order dated 20.12.2006, enhancing the water tariff per kilo liter. There was a subsequent revision on 20.10.2010. Therefore, challenging both the revisions, the petitioner has come up with the above the Writ petition. 5.The revision made by the respondents is assailed by the petitioner on two grounds namely, (a) that the water tariff has been increased manifold, without any justification and (b)that charges are levied not according to the meter reading, but according to the sanctioned limit. 6.Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the case of the respondents is that the tariff has been revised uniformly for all agreement holders. Therefore, there is no discrimination against the petitioner. Insofar as the second objection is concerned, the respondents have stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that in order to prevent consumers from booking a higher quantity and then consuming lesser quantity, the respondents have prescribed a limit of 75%. But this aspect is disputed by the petitioner on the ground that it is not imposed as one of the conditions in the agreement. 7.Thus there are factual disputes atleast with regard to the second contention, which cannot be resolved by this Court in a Writ petition. The question whether the respondents can charge something like monthly minimum charges at 75% of the sanctioned limit or not, is a question on which both parties may have to lead evidence, in view of the fact that there is no condition relating to the same in the agreement. 8.Clause 19 of the agreement entered into between the parties, provides for the resolution of the dispute through arbitration. Clause 19 reads as follows: "19.All the disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 whatsoever, shall be referred to two arbitrators one each to be appointed by each party to settle the difference and in case of difference of opinion between them, to one ampire appointed by the two said arbitrators before entering on the reference and the decision of the arbitrators (or ampire as the case may be) shall be conclusive and binding on the parties." 9.In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner should only invoke the arbitration clause. Therefore, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to nominate an arbitrator on their behalf within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within two weeks of the receipt of the nomination from the petitioner, the respondents shall nominate an arbitrator on their behalf. Both the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire if they deem it necessary. The whole proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of constitution. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Thoothukudi. +One Cc to Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, Advocate, SR.No.43911 nbj rl/4c – 26.12.2011 WP(MD)No.9781 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 15.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/