CWP No. 18200 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.10.2010 The Superintending Engineer, Public Health, M.C., Chandigarh and others ....Petitioner VERSUS Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), UT, Chandigarh whereby the petitioners have been directed to levy water/sewrage charges upon members of the Society owning the Flats at domestic rate since their occupation and the excess charges, if any , paid by the members be adjusted in future bills. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the members are occupying the premises without completion certificates having been issued to them. It is, however, not disputed that the user of the water and sewerage is only domestic. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise commercial rates from the members of the Society who are availing the water and sewerage services purely for domestic purpose. A similar view has been expressed by a CWP No. 18200 of 2010 2 Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1422 of 2008 decided on 1.2.2008 wherein following observations have been made:- “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and no interference of this Court is warranted. When the respondent- Administration is supplying electricity to respondent no.2 on domestic rate, then there is no justification for the administration in denying him water connection on domestic rate. Apart from this the Finance and Contract Committee in its meeting held on 9.5.2007 has decided that water connections be allowed to GPA holders. The respondent no.2 is admittedly GPA holder. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.” In view of the above, I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.10. 2010 MFK CWP No. 18200 of 2010 3