IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.13983 of 2008 Between: Sri Lakshmi Nilayam (Kasoji Prakash) Apartment Residents Welfare Association, reptd., by its Secretary-Sri T.Venkateswarlu. … Petitioner And The Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Managing Director and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy for R.1 & R.3. AGP for Municipal Administration for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice No.O&M Dn.X/Sub-Dn/I/II/III/MSB/Tariff/08- 09, dated 21-4-2008 of respondent No.3. I have heard Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, representing respondent respondents 1 and 3. The petitioner is the Welfare Association of Sri Lakshmi Nilayam (Kasoji Prakash) Apartment residents. It is their plea that on 1-11-1996 water connection was taken to their residential premises and that the apartment complex was built in the year 1999. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the impugned notice, whereby one Sri Kasoji Prakash was called upon to apply for a fresh water supply and sewerage connection in appropriate category as laid down in Board Proceedings No.88 and 91 of respondent No.1-Board within seven days. It was alleged in the said notice that the premises in question was sanctioned water supply and sewerage connection for domestic use and that the owner/occupier has violated the rules and regulations by using the domestic connection for other purposes. It is also alleged therein that a new structure/multistoried building/apartment has been constructed in the place of the old structure and that they are enjoying both the facilities of water and sewage in violation of the Rules and the Board Proceedings. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that since the water and sewerage charges are being paid regularly, the impugned notice is illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is, inter alia, stated that water supply connection was given to the premises in question in the name of one Sri Kasoji Prakash by the L.B.Nagar Municipality before it formed part of respondent No.1-Board on 1-11- 1996 with ½’’ dia water supply connection; that water supply connections were transferred from L.B.Nagar Municipality to respondent No.1-Board from 1-1-1997; and that later the independent house was demolished and a multistoried building consisting of 14 flats was constructed in its place. It is further stated that while individual connections come under Category-I, the apartments, complexes and multistoried buildings come under Category-II; and that different tariffs are fixed for water supply and sewerage connections under different categories basing on the plot area and size of water connection. It is averred that once the individual house is converted into a multistoried building, the customer has to get fresh sanction by paying the connection charges afresh as per Board Proceedings No.88, dated 20-1-1997; and that, in the present case, the water connection taken by Sri Kasoji Prakash under individual category for domestic purpose from L.B.Nagar Municipality in the year 1996 is being used for consumption by the residents of the multistoried building even after construction of the apartment in the place of the old house. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. The contents of the notice, as discussed above, would show that the same was issued on account of the admitted fact that multistoried structure has come up in the place of a residential building, in respect of which water and sewerage connection was sanctioned in the name of the owner of the building by the L.B.Nagar Municipality. The petitioner has not disputed that the regulations provide for different categories of connections and consequent on construction of multistoried building they are required to take connection under appropriate category, viz., Category No.II. The petitioner also does not dispute that as of now the connection used by the petitioner is under Category-I, which is meant only for individual houses and not for the multistoried buildings. In the face of these undisputed facts, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice. At best the petitioner can approach respondent No.3 with appropriate representation. It does not have any legally enforceable right for seeking a Mandamus to prevent respondent No.3 from exercising his statutory powers and discharging his statutory obligations. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 2-7-2008 is vacated and WPMP No.18055 of 2008 and WVMP No.3839 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13-7-2011 MNR