IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA WP.No.3722 of 2009 MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 Rajamuthaiah Chettiar and Charitable Educational Trust, by its managing Trustee Mr.Mam Ramasamy, rep by its Power Agent M/s.Chaitanya builders & Leasing (P) Ltd., Kakani Towers, 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai-6. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water and Sewage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chennai-2. 2.Area Engineer, CMWSSB, Area XA, Depot 150, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide their letter No.CMWSSB/Area XA/Depot150/spl/2009 dated 23.02.2009 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundaresan. For respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan for R1 & R2. ORDER The petitioner Rajamuthaiah Chettiar and Charitable Educational Trust has come to this court by filing the present writ petition to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide their letter No.CMWSSB/AreaXA/ Depot150/spl/2009 dated 23.02.2009 and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a trust had applied for planning permission for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ construction of B.F. + stilt + 13 floors residential flats at R.S.No.4288/8, Block No.94, MRC Nagar Main Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28, which was received by the 1st respondent on 16.03.2004. Thereafter, the 1st respondent in his letter No.C3/8002/2004, dated 21.03.2005, directed the petitioner to pay the following charges within 30 days for scrutiny of the application (i) development charges for land and building Rs.1,46,000/- (ii) Scrutiny fee Rs.16,000/- (iii) Registration charges Rs.56,000/- (iv) Security Deposit (for the proposed development) Rs.7,87,000/- (v) Security Deposit (for display board) Rs.10,000/- and (vi) Infrastructure Development Charge payable to CMWSSB Rs.5,02,000/-. Aggrieved by the said communication issued by the 1st respondent dated 21.03.2005, earlier the petitioner filed writ petition in WP.No.11821 of 2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court on 20.12.2006. Against which, the petitioner filed an SLP before the Supreme Court along with a batch of cases in SLP (Civil) Appeal No.1079 of 2009 and the same was allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 17.02.2008 setting aside the order of this court and remitting the matter back for fresh consideration with certain directions and the matter is still pending before this Court. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has completed the construction. On completion of the construction, the petitioner applied for water connection on 27.01.2008. The respondents have demanded a sum of Rs.5,37,040/- on various heads. Accepting the demand made by the respondents, the petitioner paid the entire amount on the same day by way of D.D.No.202363 dated 27.01.2007 for effecting the water and sewage connections, thereby, the entire issue was put at rest. The personnel of the 2nd respondent, though commenced the work by laying pipelines, suddenly abandoned the work without making any progress and the impugned notice came to be issued demanding further sum of Rs.3,99,360/- towards difference in service connection charges to provide water and sewage connection. The said impugned notice is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed the following submissions: (i) After completion of the construction, when the petitioner applied for water and sewage connection, the respondents demanded Rs.5,37,040/- and the said amount was paid on the very same day on 27.01.2007. Therefore, the entire amount towards water and sewage connection charges having been paid by the petitioner on 27.01.2007, the question of issuing one more demand notice by the respondents towards water and sewage connection will not arise. (ii) If the purpose of issuance of the present impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of service connection charges, is due to the delay in effecting the service connection in time, the petitioner should not be held responsible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, the respondents, while demanding Rs.5,37,040/-, did not mention that the said amount was only a tentative demand towards water and sewage connections, therefore, bereft of particulars, the second respondent cannot once again demand by way of impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.3,99,360/-. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, supporting their stand for demanding a sum of Rs.3,99,360/- towards water and sewage connection charges. However, nowhere in the counter, the respondents have mentioned on what basis, they have collected the earlier amount of Rs.5,37,040/-. 6. It is an admitted case that, after completion of the construction on 27.01.2007, the petitioner has made an application to the authorities for providing water and sewage connections. After receiving the said application, the second respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.5,37,040/- viz., connection charges for water at Rs.2530/- x 52 = 1,31,560/-; Sewage connection at Rs.4790/- x 52 = 2,49,080/-; Advance Tax at Rs.3000/- x 52 = 1,56,000/- and Meter testing charges Rs.400/-, and the said amount of Rs.5,37,040/- has been paid on the same day on 27.01.2007. For the reason that the respondents have taken their own time in effecting the water and sewage connections, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It seems that the present stand taken by the respondents is only in view of the Circular dated 30.01.2008, as per which, the Board has resolved vide Resolution No.29 of 2008 to revise the water and sewerage connection charges from 01.02.2008. This Circular cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner since the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,37,040/- on 27.01.2007 towards water and sewerage connection and further, the Circular does not mention that it will have retrospective effect so as to apply the same to the case of the petitioner as well. 7. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present impugned notice, demanding a sum of Rs.3,99,360/-, and the same is accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that this court by an order dated 28.04.2009 made in M.P.No.2 of 2009, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within one week and on such payment, the respondents shall complete the process of giving water and sewage connection to the petitioner within seven days thereafter and payment has already been made without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions in this writ petition. In view of setting aside the impugned notice dated 23.02.2009 now this court directs the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 28.4.2009 in MP.2/2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. -Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar tsh To 1.Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water and Sewage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chennai-2. 2.Area Engineer, CMWSSB, Area XA, Depot 150, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28. +1 C.C. to MR.V.MANOHARAN Advocate SR.No.37098 +1 C.C. to MR.S.SUNDRESAN Advocate SR.No.37091 WP.No.3722 of 2009 PVR(CO) VS 29.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/