Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Mr.Vactavarmal vs The Chairman

Madras High Court|16 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the fourth respondent in respect of the petition premises.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of a shop portion bearing door No.28/10, Strotten Muthia Mudali Street, Chennai-600 079 and he has been in absolute possession of the property and carrying on business in selling electrical goods. According to him there is no water and sewerage connection to his shop portion. Inspite of the fact that he is not having water and sewerage connection, the respondents are demanding water charges from 1996 onwards. Hence the petitioner sent a representation to the third respondent stating that he is not liable to pay any water charges. However the fourth respondent issued the impugned notice demanding arrears of water charges of Rs.15,150/- from 1/1996-97 to 2/2002-03 + surcharge of Rs.10,570/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the impugned order is being attacked on the ground that he is not a consumer. He further submitted that even if he is a consumer he cannot be classified as commercial consumer, in view of the dictum laid down by this court. In the earlier proceedings the learned counsel submitted that he is a consumer. However he strenuously argued that he would not come under the category of commercial consumer. He relied upon Section 44 of CMWSS Act, which speaks about different types of consumers, areas and purpose. Section 45 gives the details about the water connection for domestic consumption and use. In explanation to Section 45, various types of purposes are included in the category of supply of water for domestic consumption. Relying upon the explanation to the Section, learned counsel submitted that trade/manufacturer or business, are included in the domestic consumer. By virtue of As far as explanation to Section 45 of the Act, the premises would not come under the commercial category. He relied upon a judgement of this court in K.M.Abdullah Sahib vs. the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Madras reported in 1991 WLR, wherein this court held that if water is supplied to the premises and that water is used for residence, then domestic rate can be charged and if water is used for commercial purpose then commercial charges can be charged. Relying upon the judgement learned counsel submitted that if at all the petitioner shop is to be charged only under the domestic category and not otherwise.
3. The levy and collection of water and sewerage charges and tax are governed by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and sewerage Board (levy and collection) Regulation Act 1998. Regulation 6 defines who is a consumer. Regulation 7 defines what is meant " Domestic Residential Premises" and they are extracted as follows ":
"6. "Consumer" means any person drawing water supply from the Board and or having sewerage connections provided by the Board or owner or occupier of any premises provided with a service connection by the Board;
7. "Domestic Residential Premises" means Dwelling units, Flats, Line of Houses, Residential Government Quarters, Raj Bhavan, Residences of Ministers, Judges and High Dignitaries, Legislators Hostel, Hostel of Colleges nd Schools recognised by State or Central Government and includes premises used exclusively for religious purposes and old age homes".
4. The premises like petitioner's shop, does not come under the definition of 'regulation 7' and it comes under 'regulation 4' which defines commercial premises and the same is extracted as follows:
"4. "Commercial Premises" means--
(i) Irrespective of consumption of water, premises used fully for business, Commercial complexes, Trade, Commerce, building purposes fall under this category.
(ii) Premises used fully or partly as Theatres, Hotels, Boarding Houses, Lodges, Clubs, Private Hospitals, Private Hostels, Kalyanamandapams, Clinics with inpatient facility, Swimming Baths, Places for keeping animals, vehicles Service Stations, Nurseries, etc.
(iii) Industries, Railways, Port Trust and all other Business/Commercial and Industrial Establishments not covered in sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of this clause above, Central and State Public Sector undertakings, Commercial Boards and Authorities."
5. For commercial purpose, for charging water and sewerage services, there are two types of consumers; one is metered consumer and another is non-metered consumer. In non-metered consumer there are five types of consumer namely domestic, commercial, partly commercial, institutional. The second item is commercial. Even the second category, has been divided into two; one is water non intensive and other is water intensive. For non-water intensive half yearly charges is 200/- and for intensive water charges is Rs.400/.
6. The Board resisted contention by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner comes under un-metered consumer, which comes under commercial water intensive. When the respondent specifically went by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and sewerage service charges (levy and collection) Regulations 1998, the same cannot be found fault with. The regulation is very categorical and gives various types of buildings and various types of consumers. Petitioner is only paying a sum of Rs.200/- as half yearly water charges. When that is the position, no motive could be attributed against the respondents and the classification cannot be found fault with and in view of that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. Moreover a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.498 of 2001 by its judgement dated 20.4.2007 set aside the order of the single judge, who quashed the demand for payment of water charges on the ground that the petitioner was not having any sewerage water connection. The Division Bench while setting aside the single judge's order held that it is immaterial whether the occupants has availed the supply of water or not. In the circumstances, for existing water connection, the board is entitled to raise the demand. In view of that also the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Consequently the connected WPMP.No.15288 of 2003 is also dismissed.
vk To
1.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
2.Senior Account Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
3.Area Officer, Area-II, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Anna Poonga, M.C.Road, Chennai-600 021.
4.The Tahsildar, (Land and Estate), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr.Vactavarmal vs The Chairman

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
16 December, 2009