CWP No.20424 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20424 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.09.2011 Sudershan Puri aged 74 w/o Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar Puri r/o House No.65, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. ... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation U.T. Chandigarh through it's Chairman, Sector-17, Chandigarh. ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the letter issued by the Municipal Corporation directing that the water meter shall be shifted from the back courtyard to the place near the gate. Through yet another communication issued 4 days later on 15.11.2010, the Corporation again directed that the petitioner shall furnish any detail of the permission alleged to have granted already to install the water meter at the back courtyard. The Corporation had warned that if the water meter has not shifted immediately from back courtyard to the front courtyard, CWP No.20424 of 2010 (O&M) [2] it would be done at the risk and the cost of the owner. 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the action prompted by the Corporation is not bona fide and the action is engineered through the Municipal Councillor, whose brother claims as a purchaser of the property. It is contended by the petitioner that there had been disputes in the manner of enjoyment between various members of the family since the year 1991 and to ward off any mischief at the instance of persons, who were creating trouble to the petitioner's peaceful enjoyment to the facilities, a request had been made to the Corporation for shifting the water meter to the back courtyard and necessary charges had also been paid on 14.10.1996. 3. At the previous hearing on 18.08.2011, I had directed the Corporation to produce before the Court the application that the petitioner or her husband ought to have made at the time of payment of the shifting charge along with the entire file. The counsel appearing for the Corporation states that such files are not available and only the original receipt book showing the paid amount for shifting charges and the meter reading register are available. 4. It is not possible to conceive of a situation where a person, who is enjoying the facilities provided by the Corporation could have paid shifting charges without letting the Corporation know where the actual shifting was. It is common experience that water meter shall be placed in such a way, which provides an easy access for the public authority to verify that there is no tampering done and there is illegal tapping of water by placing any contrivance at the point before the location of the water meter. While I appreciate the difficulty that the petitioner claims by any danger of the meter being shifted to the CWP No.20424 of 2010 (O&M) [3] front portion where there exists already a dispute between persons claiming various portions of the property, in my view, public interest demands that the location has to be in a place which provides an immediate access for the Municipal Authorities to examine the water meter whenever necessary. 5. I am not adverting to the objections raised that the water meter itself does not stand in the name of the petitioner now. Admittedly, it stands in the name of father-in-law of the petitioner, who is not alive. Normally, water meter could be only in the name of the owner, who enjoys the facilities. This has continued in the name of father-in-law and even if there is any mutation that has taken place subsequently, I will hold, for the purpose of this petition, that the petitioner's right to water itself cannot be jeopardized. At the same time, I will hold that the petitioner shall not have a right to insist that the meter be only retained at the back courtyard. The petitioner is at liberty to point out to a location within the premises, which provides immediate access to the Municipal Corporation. This is in keeping with the water supply bye law 14, which is as follows: “(i) Every meter shall be placed as near to the stop cock as possible and in a position where it can be conveniently examined. The position shall be selected by the Chief Administrator, who shall have exclusive control of meter and stop cock. (ii) An account of the service and cost of repairs of the meters installed by the Chief Administrator shall be kept in Form C given in Schedule “A”.” 6. If the petitioner cannot identify the property and informed the Corporation within 7 days in writing from the date CWP No.20424 of 2010 (O&M) [4] of receipt of copy of the order, the Corporation is at liberty to chose its own location. The shifting shall be done by the Corporation at its own expense and will not charge the petitioner with any amount, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner claims that it had been shifted in the year 1996 only on the payment of charges and the present shifting which is claimed as necessary by the Corporation shall be, therefore, done at its own expenditure. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE