Dismissed

Sriram Nagar Kudiyirupor Pothu v. The Managing Director

Madras HC17 Oct 2022WP/34557/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the uniform water supply charges of Rs.150 per month levied by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for the Porur area. The Court held that under Section 44 of the CMWSS Act, 1978 and a Gazette notification, the Board was empowered to levy charges fixed by the erstwhile local authority, with no bona fide reason for revision

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sriram Nagar Kudiyirupor Pothu Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.34557 of 2014 &

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶8

Sriram Nagar Kudiyirupor Pothu Nala Sangam-Porur rep by its President Mr.R.Kesavan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board No.1 Pumping Station Road Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002

¶12

The Area engineer- XI Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002 ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the demand notice issued by the second respondent dated 20.08.2014 pertaining to Area XI of Porur Water Supply charges and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to adopt the water

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶17

charges uniformly levy for other areas of Chennai Corporation to the Porur, Sri Ram Nagar, Porur, Chennai-600 116.

¶18

For Petitioner : MR.K.M.Subramaniam

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.Jerry V.V.Sundar, Standing Counsel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Writ Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the demand notice issued by the second respondent dated 20.08.2014 pertaining to Area XI of Porur Water Supply charges and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to adopt the water charges uniformly levy for other areas of Chennai Corporation to the Porur, Sri Ram Nagar, Porur, Chennai-600 116.

¶22

It is the case of the Writ petitioner that the petitioner's association originally fell within the limit of Porur Town Panchayat. Now it is merged with Chennai Corporation as Ward No.153. Now the 2^nd respondent issued water charges for domestic purposes at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. This amount has been arrived and fixed on the basis of circular No.CMWSSB/O&M/Porur Town Panchayat/ 2012 dated 21.06.2012 and old circular was maintained by the erst while Town Panchayat of Porur, before

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶26

the merging of Porur with Chennai Corporation. Hence, it is the contention that the Chennai Corporation is charging uniform rate of Rs.50/- per month for all other areas connected to the Corporation limit. But the respondents are insisting the petitioner basing the circular No.CMWSSB/O&M/Porur Town Panchayat 2012 dated 21.06.2012, which is illegal, hence sought to quash the same.

¶27

Whereas it is the contention of the respondents that 42 Urban Local

¶28

Bodies were merged with Chennai Municipal Corporation vide G.O.(Ms).No. 97 dt. 19.07.2011 with effect from 01.10.201. The different local bodies merged with Chennai Metropolitan Area had different tariff and water/sewer charges. The Porur Town Panchayat prior to merger had resolved to collect Rs.150/- per month towards water supply charges vide then Local & Municipal Notification No.5, dated 01.07.2008. the Tamil

¶29

Nadu Government vide its Gazette Notification No.51 dated 23.02.2012 has notified as follows:-

¶30

“ Provided that all taxes, fees and duties in

¶31

respect of water supply and sewage services as

¶32

levied by the local authority concerned before the

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 3 of 8_

¶34

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶35

date of the such extension shall be deemed to have

¶36

been levied by the Board under the provision of the Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly, until such taxes, fees and duties are revised, cancelled or suspended by anything done on any action taken under this Act.”

¶37

Accordingly, the respondent Board is collecting Rs.150/- per month

¶38

towards water supply charges as resolved by the erstwhile Porur Town Panchayat. Sec.44 of CMWSS Act, 1978 (in short 'Act') empower CMWSS Board to levy water supply charges at different rate for different areas. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

The main contention of the petitioner's association is that the Corporation after merger of the Porur Town Panchayat is collecting the water sewage charges at the rate of Rs.150/- per month fixed by the ersthwile Town Panchayat. Whereas the other areas Corporation is collecting

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶42

_________ Page 4 of 8_

¶43

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶44

a uniform rate of Rs.50/- per month. Therefore, seeks to quash the demand.

¶45

I have perused the counter affidavit, whereas it is the contention of

¶46

the Standing counsel that as per Sec.44 of the Act empowers the Corporation to collect such amount besides there is Government Order also notified to the effect that amount resolved by the erstwhile Town Panchayat shall continue to be received. Therefore, it is the contention that even now the same amount has been paid . There is no revision made by the Corporation. Hence, he submits that Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶47

I have perused the entire materials.

¶48

The 42 Urban Local Bodies were merged with the Chennai Municipal Corporation vide G.O.(Ms).No.97 dated 19.07.2011 with effect from 01.10.2011. Gazette notification also issued to the effect that all the taxes, fees and duties in respect of water supply and sewage services as levied by the local authority concerned before the date of the such extension shall be deemed to have been levied by the Board under the provision of the Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly, until such taxes, fees and

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶50

_________ Page 5 of 8_

¶51

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶52

duties are revised, cancelled or suspended by anything done on any action taken under this Act. Besides Sec.44 of the Act also empowers Board to levy water supply charges at different rate for different areas.

¶53

When there is a Gazette notification even at the time of merger to continue to receive the charges fixed by the erstwhile Town Panchayat and the same remain in force till it is revised. The date of merger is of the year 01.10.2011, even now the said amount is continuing and no revision whatsoever is taken place even after passage of more than 11 years.

¶54

Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the Gazette notification permits the Corporation to receive the amount and Sec.44 also empowers to fix the different rate, the Writ petitioner cannot challenge the same. Even now there is no revision, the same amount of Rs.150/- is collected.

¶55

In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in the matter.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶57

_________ Page 6 of 8_

¶58

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶59

Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶60

17.10.2022

¶61

kpr To

¶62

The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board No.1 Pumping Station Road Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002

¶63

The Area engineer- XI Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002

¶64

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶65

kpr

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 7 of 8_

¶67

W.P.No.34557 of 2014

¶68

W.P.No.34557 of 2014 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶69

17.10.2022

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶71

_________ Page 8 of 8_

Sriram Nagar Kudiyirupor Pothu v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriram Nagar Kudiyirupor Pothu v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Pugazhendhi Vs The District Collector

A Bindu Santhosh Vs The District Collector

University of Madras Vs The Director

Mr.Jai Kishan Mohata Vs Public Information Officer

S.Bhavani Vs The Branch Manager