IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.13534 of 2009 Date of Decision : 24.8.2010 Hakam Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.S.Mann, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.G.S.Sathi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Karan Pathak, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This civil writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from recovering the amounts on account of water and sewerage charges as per notification No.2/2/2003- 3LGIV/6514 dated 2/5/2003, which already stands quashed. It is the case of the petitioners that once such a notification has been quashed by an order of this Court in CWP No.19714 of 2006, decided on 3.9.2008, any consequent action taken pursuant to such a notification cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Upon notice of motion having been issued, the State of Punjab as also the Punjab Water Supplies and sewerage Board took C.W.P.No.13534 of 2009 -2- up a stand that it was not their responsibility to enforce the billing on account of water and sewerage and it is the responsibility of the Municipal Committee concerned. Respondents No.4 and 5, who put in appearance, were repeatedly given time to file an affidavit in response to the petition but they have failed to do so. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. In the absence of any denial to the averments made in the writ petition, the Court is left with no other option but to appreciate the contentions which have been raised herein. The judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.19714 of 2006 quashed the notification in question. There is no suggestive material from where it can be inferred that the said judgment has been tested by way of an appeal or there is an impediment by way of a restraint order from any superior forum. Hence, any action which has been taken pursuant to the notification, which already stands quashed, can be held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law. As observed earlier, there is no denial from the respondents that they are resorting to the recovery of water and sewerage charges pursuant to the said notification. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned recoveries pursuant to the demand raised upon the petitioners are directed to be quashed. Respondents No.4 and 5, if having any policy to enforce the recoveries under some arrangement or notification subsequent to the one which has been C.W.P.No.13534 of 2009 -3- quashed, will resort to them, if permissible under law. 24.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss