Allowed

Anita Sabharwal v. Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/9256/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed rebate claim and directed Delhi Jal Board to treat deposit of Rs. 32,263 as final payment. Petitioner granted four weeks to apply for conversion of water connection to domestic category citing General Clinic status.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat Rs. 32,263 deposit as final payment and allow petitioner four weeks to apply for connection conversion to domestic category.

Anita Sabharwal Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9256/2014 ANITA SABHARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. with Mr. Ram Kumar Tripathi, Adv. for DJB CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 10.04.2018

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶10

following prayers:

¶11

“In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

¶12

a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly with of certiorari whereby quashing / setting said all the impugned bills sent to the petitioner since 2012 wherein the respondents have shown the premises of the petitioner under category-II instead of category IA which is now being shown as category B under the notification pertaining to water tariff applicable from 01.01.2014.

¶13

b) Issue a writ of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to issue correct water bills to the petitioner since 2012.

¶14

c) Pass such further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

d) Cost of proceedings.”

¶16

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made

¶17

two submissions; (i) that even though the respondents have made a claim of Rs.70746/-, the petitioner is entitled to rebate under Delhi Government Scheme whereby the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 32263/-. She would be satisfied if the said amount is treated as final amount without any further claim and; (ii) that in terms of notification dated August 10, 2015 whereby it has been decided to abolish mixed-use-category and the existing mixed-use-consumers like the petitioner would require to apply to the respective Zonal Review Officers for either getting their category changed to domestic by furnishing an undertaking along with supporting documents or by converting existing connection to commercial and apply for a new connection for residential purposes or vice-versa. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, the petitioner be granted an opportunity to apply for conversion of the connection to domestic, as she could not apply in view of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions state, on the aspect the amount of Rs. 32263/- is concerned the same shall be treated as a final payment. Further, if the petitioner applies for domestic connection by

¶19

stating she is running a General Clinic, her case shall be considered for conversion to domestic connection henceforth. These submissions are acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner, and they are taken on record and the respondents shall be bound by the same. The petitioner shall also apply for conversion of her water connection to domestic by stating that she is running a General Clinic and the same shall be considered by the respondents strictly in terms of the rules within four weeks thereafter and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶20

Petition is disposed of.

¶21

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶22

APRIL 10, 2018 /aky

Anita Sabharwal v. Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Sabharwal v. Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Gupta Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Chadha Sports (Regd.) Vs Public Works Department, Gnctd and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Renaissance Aqua Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Birender Sangwan Vs Distt. Judge North West & Anr.

Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tripat Singh & Ors.

Ashish Saraf Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

M/S Dr Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging & Research Institute & Anr. Vs Shiv Kumar ,Ias District Appropriate Authority West District

Shoaib Vs S K Singh and Anr.

Rakesh Filling Station Vs Indraprastha Gas Limited & Anr.

Raaj Muttreja Vs Gurkripal Singh & Ors.