IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 30-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN WRIT PETITION No.13856 OF 2008 G.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary, Local Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104. 3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 4.The Executive Officer, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, Selection Grade, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. 5.The Chairman, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, DharapuramTaluk, Erode District. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the fourth respondent relating to Na,Ka.No.13/05, dated 06.05.2008, quash the same and for a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to continue supplying water to the petitioner's property in Selliamman Koil Street, Kolathupalayam, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. For petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel, for Mrs.R.Meenal. For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, Addl.Govt.Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondent 4 & 5 : Mr.M.Dhandapani O R D E R Petitioner owns a house in Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat and he paid a deposit of Rs.150/- for drinking water connection. On 28.01.2008, he received a notice from the fourth respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.2850/- out of Rs.3000/- towards enhanced minimum deposit, within 15 days. Since the same was not paid, on 06.05.2008, the fourth respondent issued another notice to the petitioner, directing payment of the difference in the deposit amount and the cost of the notice sent by registered post. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 2. The stand of the fourth respondent is that as per Rule 22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10, dated 14.01.2003, the deposit amount for water connection had been increased from Rs.150/- to Rs.3000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2850/- was to be paid by the petitioner; accordingly, on 06.05.2008, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner, directing him to pay the additional deposit of Rs.2850/- for the water connection; on 15.05.2008, the District Collector informed the petitioner that under Section 132 (A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the Town Panchayat had power to collect the increased deposit; on 30.05.2008, the Chairman of Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat sent notice to all the Councillors and convened the meeting on 05.06.2008 and passed resolution No.16, for collecting additional deposit of Rs.2850/- from the people, who have got water connection from this respondent panchayat and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the demand made by the respondent on the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 4. The only question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the impugned notice of the fourth respondent, dated 06.05.2008, demanding the petitioner to make additional deposit of Rs.2850/- towards drinking water connection, is in accordance with law ? 5. To decide the above question, the relevant provisions to be dealt with are : Rule 22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10, dated 14.01.2003; Sections 132 (A), 310 (1) and 310 (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and Resolution No.16. 6. Rule 22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10 is to the effect that whatever connections are given before the amendment will be treated as given under the said amendment and either the builder or the incumbent of the premises should bear the expenses https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pertaining to the water connection. The said amendment is dated 14.01.2003. Though the said rule has a retrospective effect, it is silent as to the enhancement of deposit for drinking water connection from Rs.150/- to 3000/-. Therefore, the said rule does not empower the authorities to enhance the deposit. 7. Though Section 132 (A) of the District Municipalities Act does not specifically mention about the security deposit, as the Municipal Council has to ensure payment of water bills promptly according to the water consumed, the Court has no doubt that such a power vests in the Municipal Council under Section 132-A, but such power cannot be exercised unless bye-laws to that effect are framed. 8. Section 310 (1) of the Act provides that no bye-laws or cancellation or alteration of a bye-law shall have effect until the same is approved and confirmed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) provides that any bye-law, when it is duly confirmed, shall be published in the District Gazette in English and shall come into operation three months after it has been so published. 9. It is the admission of the fourth respondent in the counter that on 30.05.2008, Chairman of the Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat had sent notices to all the Councillors; convened a Meeting on 05.06.2008 and passed Resolution No.16, for collecting additional deposit of Rs.2850/- from the persons, who have got water connection from the fourth respondent panchayat, on 05.06.2008, which was much later to the impugned demand, dated 06.05.2008, issued to the petitioner. Further, the said resolution/bye-law was published in the Erode District Gazette on 23.06.2008. 10. As per Section 310 (2) of the Act, any bye-law shall come into operation only after three months after it has been so published in the District Gazette. In the present case, as the bye- law, demanding additional deposit of Rs.2850/-, having been published in the Erode District Gazette on 23.06.2008, the same shall be operative only from 23.09.2008 and not before that. 11. Despite the said clear provision, it is unfortunate to note that the respondents had resorted to issue demand notice on the petitioner, much before the bye-law coming into operation. As on the date of issuing the impugned demand notice on the petitioner, there was no bye-law operating, which empowered the fourth respondent to insist on making enhanced security deposit. Therefore, without the proposed bye-law becoming operative, the insistence on making balance enhanced security deposit cannot be approved as valid and lawful. 12. Admittedly, in this case, all the proceedings viz., placing of resolution/bye-law in the Council Meeting and passing of the same by the Council; its publication in the District Gazette took place only after issuance of demand notice. The bye-law was pressed into service premature when it had no operational effect. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the impugned demand notice, in my considered opinion, is ex facie illegal. 13. A Division Bench of this Court, in Pudukkottai Municipality Tax Payers Sangam v. The Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality, 1995 (1) MLJ 210, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, held that even though amendment to the existing bye-laws may be in process, the amended bye-law cannot become operative until the same is confirmed by the State Government and published in the District Gazette in English and three months' time expires after it has been so published. 14. In view of what is discussed above, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned of the fourth respondent, dated 06.05.2008. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar dixit To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Local Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104. 3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode. 4.The Executive Officer, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, Selection Grade, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The Chairman, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, DharapuramTaluk, Erode District. +1 cc to Mr.M.Dhandapani, Advocate, SR.No.34030 +1 cc to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate, SR.No.33515 W.P.No.13856 OF 2008 BS {CO} TP/11.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/