This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Proc.2/030/1510/00/2, dated 8.12.2003, for the payment of Water and Sewerage Tax, under Section 62 (2) of The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even though the demand notice had been issued to both the petitioner, as well as the owner of the property, who is the second respondent herein, the impugned proceedings had been issued only to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is arbitrary and illegal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the impugned proceedings had been issued in accordance with Section 62 of The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, as well as the regulations for levy and collection of water tax and sewerage tax and water supply and sewerage service charges of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, 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 proceedings of the first respondent, dated 8.12.2003, at this stage. However, it is seen that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 6.1.2004, in W.P.M.P.No.178 of 2004, in W.P.No.183 of 2004. From the endorsement, as recorded by this Court in the order sheet, on 17.11.2004, in W.P.M.P.No.178 of 2004, it is also seen that the balance amount of the water and sewerage tax had also been paid by the petitioner to the first respondent.
5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to go before the concerned authorities, with regard to the disputed amount claimed by the first respondent, as water and sewerage tax.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection for this Court permitting the petitioner to raise the issue before the appropriate authorities, in accordance with law.
7. Hence, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, if there is any dispute, with regard to the quantum of tax demanded by the first respondent, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities, by making a representation in that regard and it will be open to the authorities concerned to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.