WRIT PETITION NO.13894/90

Subject: Not to invoke the R.R. Act by distraining or selling the properties of the
petitioner.

JUDGMENT
"It is not ideal to contend that the R.R. Act was applicable only to recovery of arrears of Land Revenue and nothing else. Revenue Recovery Act could be resorted to and in view of Sec.74 of CMWSS  Act, there is no period of limitation for the recovery of arrears.

WP 5682/2000

Subject: To restore water connection to petitioner's flat in his apartment at 12/1,South Avenue, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 since he is paying dues to the Board regularly whereas other Flat - owners
are in default.

JUDGMENT
"The respondents are not duty bound to restore water supply to the Flat complex, if the other Flat-owners are in default. Any Flat complex is jointly owned by several persons, but for water supply, the complex is a single unit. A single flat owner can claim the right of supply, only if he has a separate connection of his own and is not in default. Any other interpretation would render the public bodies bankrupt. It is for the Association of the Flat owners to see that there is no default in payment of the dues to the Board. It is only after all the dues are paid, the respondent Board would be obliged to restore the connection."
WP 15243/97

Subject : Not to levy water tax to petitioner's schools (Bhalabavan Educational
Trust) in view of G.O.Ms.No.333 dt.30.6.94 of Government.

JUDGEMENT
"It is always open to the Respondents to revise the water tax as well as sewerage tax and whenever
the revision is to be made, then only they have to follow the procedure laid down in the statute to reassess the Annual Rental value of the building."


W.A.No.147/93 and CMP No.2107/93

Subject : To declare that certain regulations of CMWSSB as illegal and ultra vires since the
regulations fastened liability on the owner of a domestic premises, used for commercial purposes partly.

JUDGMENT
"It is for the owners of premises to be careful in utilising their premises for business purposes, if they want to avoid the levy of commercial rate in respect of water or electricity supply. There is nothing unreasonable in the regulations and therefore it is upheld. It isnot agreeable that because water is not supplied to the shops, the premises can't be categorised as commercial premises. Levy of water charges is upheld on the basis that the premises is a commercial premises."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI DATED 3.12.2002

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN

WRIT PETITION NO.17906 OF 2002 AND WMP.NO.25965 OF 2000

Gist of the Case

                       The writ petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent i.e. the CMWSS Board to waive the surcharge levied for non payment of water and sewerage tax and water charges.

JUDGMENT

                        The Hon’ble Mr. Justice   E. Padmanabhan, ordered that for the belated payment the regulations provide for levy of surcharge at 2% per month with effect from 1.10.1997 in terms of Regulations 10 (1) of Water and Sewerage Tax (levy and collection) Regulation 1991 for the belated payment of Water Tax and Sewerage Tax the Assessee is liable to pay surcharge.  Therefore the levy of surcharge is authorized by the statutory regulations and the petitioner cannot challenge the same.    In terms of the said rules the water tax and sewerage tax already issued to the petitioner under regulation 10 shall be deemed to be the demand and no further demand is required to be made by issue of notice.   Therefore the contention of petitioner   for non issue of demand notice for several years cannot be sustained.   Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed and consequently the W.M.P. is closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI DATED 5.9.2003THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM

WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2002 AND WMP.NO.34130 OF 2002  

Gist of the Case

                        The petitioner challenges the consequential order of the 2nd respondent i.e. CMDA demanding infrastructure development charges from them

JUDGMENT

                        The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam ordered that in as much as Sub Section xii (a) has been inserted in Section   6 (2) of the CMWSS Act 1978, even in 1998 (by virus of Act 49 of 1998) the action of the respondents i.e state of Tamil Nadu, CMDA and CMWSS Board and the demand towards infrastructure development charges cannot be faulted  with.    On this ground this writ petition is dismissed   consequently  the W.M.P. is also dismissed.       

Writ Petition Nos. 14723 and 14724 of 1990 

Subject:-          The Writ Petitioner M/s Southern Tool Services has prayed not to collect water tax and sewerage tax from them in  the absence of providing water and sewerage facility to the firm.

Judgment :     The Hon'ble High Court has  ordered that the CMWSS Board can claim the water and sewerage taxes from the date of Sale Deed where  the title deed in the name of owner and the respondent  Board are liberty to demand the water & sewerage tax from the year in which the sale deed of the concerned land was transferred to their names.  Further the petitioner cannot contend that as the premises are not provided with water & sewerage connection, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said tax, since the water & sewerage tax is levied based on the assessment of the annual value of the premises as per Sec. 34 of CMWSS Act.  It is also confirmed in another judgement vide W.P.No.8674/03 and 8675/03 dated 14.10.2003.            

Judgment in Writ Petition No. 11461 of 2003, dated 14.7.05 for Water Supply Charges.

  Subject:-      The Writ Petition is filed for the relief of the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents (The Secretary, MAWS Dept. Secretariat, Ch-9, The Managing Director, CMWSSB, Ch-2 and The Area Engineer, CMWSSB, Ch-18.) to maintain the supply of water to the petitioner's flat bearing No.75/24, C.P. Ramasamy Road, D-3 & D-4, Vasanth Apartments, Awarpet,   Ch-18.

  Order    :     As the statute provides for recovery of the amount from the occupier, there is no illegality in the impugned order.  The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that number of other occupiers are there in the flat and they will also have a share.  The same cannot also be a reason for issuance of such mandamus as prayed for in this Writ Petition.  If the charges for sewerage connection has not been made for the entire building as the entire building has only one connection, it may not be possible for the respondents (i.e. CMWSS Board) to know as to who are all the persons who paid the sewerage connection and who are all the persons who have not paid the sewerage connection to take further action.  If any one has committed default, the sewerage connection has to be cut.  Hence, in these circumstances, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted.  Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed at  No costs.    

Judgment in Writ Petition No. 344 of 2000, dated 14.7.05 for surcharge payment.

Subject:-      The Writ petition is filed for Challenging the distraint order dated 20.12.1999 in Form No.1 issued by the CMWSSB Board invoking powers conferred under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act by seeking a writ of certiorari and praying that the petitioner is not liable to pay the surcharge as there is no demand from the respondent and that he has paid the entire arrears as on date except the surcharge.

 Order    : After giving careful consideration to the issue the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.D. Dinakaran, ordered that in the matter of demand of water charges/tax, there is no necessity for the Board to raise any demand.  When the petitioner is enjoying the benefits from the Board, it is his statutory obligation to pay the dues even without waiting for any demand.  Therefore, merely because the respondent/Board has not raised any demand, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of tax and surcharge thereon.

                 Hence in these circumstances the Writ Petition is dismissed and directed to pay the surcharge due. 

W.P NO.9975/2007

 Subject:

The Writ Petitioner who is the occupier has prayed not to collect the Demand of  Water and sewerage tax  and charges for the building   at Door No.52, Acharappan St., Kothawalchadi Chennai 600 001.

 Judgment :

          The Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Kulasekaran, has ordered on 12.04.07 that  the petitioner is an occupier of the property, where the amenities are provided and certainly the petitioner  as an occupier is liable to pay the tax & charges, hence the petitioner is directed to pay the amount demanded by the Board and adjust the same in the rent payable to the landlord or landlords.

 
  Top    Home
 
Last update 30.04.08