IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.8.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.3049 of 2001 Dr.S.Nirupa .. petitioner vs. 1. Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, rep. by its Managing Director Pumping Station Road, Chindadripet Chennai 2. The Senior Accounts Officer Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Pumping Station Road, Chindadripet Chennai 3. The Junior Engineer – 103 Chennai Metro Water – Division-103 1, Whannels Road, Chennai-600 008 4. The Special Tahsildar Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, - Division – 7 25, Sathiyamoorthy Street Chetpet, Chennai-600 031 .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the demand notice bearing CMB/Pa.Aa.7/Depot-103/0173/41, dated 6.11.2000 on the file of the third respondent and the consequential distraint notice bearing M.M.C.No.01730000417, dated 9.2.2001 on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.T.P.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner has stated that she is the absolute owner of the shop No.4 in the premises bearing D.Nos.26 and 27, Poonamalli High Road, Chennai. The said shop is a portion in the ground floor of the building consisting of 24 residential flats and seven other shops in the said premises. The petitioner has leased out the said shop to M/s.Anamallais Agencies (Madras). Similarly, the petitioner's brother Dr.S.Ravindran, who is the owner of the adjacent Shop No.5 in the same building has also leased out the said shop to M/s.Anamallais Agencies (Madras). 2. It has also been stated that the tenant is using both the shops belonging to the petitioner and her brother as one unit and they are running a show room for two wheelers in the said premises. In spite of the fact that there is no Metro Water Supply connection provided to the said shops used by M/s.Anamallais Agencies (Madras), the officers of the respondent Board had demanded the payment of the charges with regard to the said shops. Only recently waste water has been let into the sewerage point provided by the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, the third respondent had issued a demand notice bearing CMB/Pa.Aa.7/Depot-103/0173/41, dated 6.11.2000, in respect of the shop No.4, demanding a sum of Rs.10,650/- towards water charges and surcharges stating that unless the amount is paid, the water and sewerage connection would be disconnected. On the same day, the third respondent had also issued a demand notice bearing No.CMB/Pa.Aa.7/Depot-103/0173/071, dated 6.11.2000, in respect of the shop No.5, belonging to the petitioner's brother, demanding a sum of Rs.12,150/- as water charges and surcharges. 3. No opportunity had been given by the third respondent before he had issued the demand notice. Necessary particulars had not been furnished in the notices such as the period for which the amounts demanded were due, the quantum of the surcharges referred to in the notices and the break up of water charges for each year. Thus, the demand notices issued by the third respondent are arbitrary, vague, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. Since the petitioner had disputed the amounts claimed by the third respondent by the demand notice, dated 6.11.2000, the petitioner had not paid the amounts demanded under the said notice. While so, the fourth respondent had served a distraint notice, bearing MMC.No.01730000417, dated 9.2.2001, stating that the amount demanded has to be paid within seven days, failing which the movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner would be attached. The petitioner was also served with a similar distraint notice bearing No.10/0173000071/1, dated 9.2.2001, in respect of the shop belonging to her brother. The fourth respondent had issued the distraint notices including the proceedings provided under Section 74 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, read with provision of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 17.11.2000, made in W.P.No.4088 of 2000, quashing the demand made by the Special Tahsildar, Chennai Metro water Supply and Sewerage Board, for the payment of water charges, on the ground that no water connection had been provided to the premises of the petitioner even though a common water supply connection had been provided for all the occupants of the building. In the said order it has been observed that, under Section 81(2) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, the Board had made a regulation in respect of levy and collection of water supply charges. The consumer has been defined in the said regulation. Accordingly, the consumer is a person drawing water supply from the Board or having sewerage connection provided by the Board or an owner or occupier of any premises provided with the service of the Board. According to the said definition, only a person, who is drawing water supply from the Board, can be construed as a consumer, as contemplated under the regulation. Since the petitioner's premises was not provided with the water connection, the question of paying water charges to the respondent Board did not arise. 6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board had placed before this Court an order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.4.2007, made in W.A.No.498 of 2001. The writ appeal had been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 17.11.2000, in the above mentioned W.P.No.4088 of 2000. In the said order, dated 20.4.2007, the Division Bench of this Court had held as follows: 3. Now, it is settled law that irrespective of the fact that the occupant of the building draws water from the common sump for his individual use or not, he is liable to pay water tax and water charges. The obligation of the respondents Board would cease and end with giving water connection to the common sump meant for all occupants of the building and thereafter, it is the responsibility of the occupants to draw water from the common sump and even if the Board could not supply water due to the reasons beyond their control, the same will not disentitle the Board to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ collect the charges inasmuch as the water and drainage connection availed by the occupant continue to exist, because every occupant of the building continues to be the consumer as defined under Section 2(6) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Service Charges (Levy and Collection) Regulations, 1998, whereunder the consumer is defined as any person drawing water supply from the Board and or having sewerage connections provided by the Board or owner or occupier of any premises provided with a service connection by the Board. The word "or" used in the definition while defining consumer would mean that it is immaterial as to whether the occupant has availed the supply of water or not, the existence of water and sewerage connection is suffice to entitle the Board to raise the demand. Therefore, the fourth appellant has rightly demanded water tax and water charges from the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.11.2000 made in Writ Petition No.4088 of 2000 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. If the writ petitioner has not paid the arrears of water tax and water charges, he shall make payment within three months from today and till then the appellant Board shall not disconnect water and sewerage connection. No costs. Consequently, CMP.No.4066 of 2001 is closed. 7. On considering the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Board and in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.4.2007, made in W.A.No.498 of 2001, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned notices issued on behalf of the Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lan To: 1. The Managing Director Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Pumping Station Road, Chindadripet Chennai 2. The Senior Accounts Officer Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Pumping Station Road, Chindadripet Chennai 3. The Junior Engineer – 103 Chennai Metro Water – Division-103 1, Whannels Road, Chennai-600 008 4. The Special Tahsildar Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, - Division – 7 25, Sathiyamoorthy Street Chetpet, Chennai-600 031 +1 cc To Mr.V.Manoharan, Advocate, SR.48239 W.P.No.3049 of 2001 sj [co] gkg/24.9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/