SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in W. P. M. P. No. 28239 of 1997 in W. P. No. 24224 of 1997, are the appellants in this Writ Appeal which is directed against the interlocutory order dated 28-10-1997 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) THE appellants applied to the first respondent/municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, represented by its Special Officer, Lower Tank Bund, hyderabad, for sanction of the plan for the proposed construction of a multi- storeyed building by giving notice under Section 438 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (Act No. II of 1956) (for short act 1955 ) on 18-6-1997. The second respondent-Chief City Planner, Town Planning section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, by letter No. 151/ tp3/ccp No. 2124 dated 17-9-1997 requested the appellants to remit a sum of Rs. 1,20,419-00 under various heads. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of the said amount in these proceedings. It is further stated in that letter that the appellants shall submit an undertaking on Rs. 20-00 non-judicial stamp paper separatelyin respect of six items, of which, itemno. 6is in dispute. Item No. 6 is as follows:"submission of a copy of receipt for Rs. 4. 35 lakhs remitted in the HMWS and SB, Hyderabad towards the water supply and sewerage connection/ improvement charges. "

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the correctness of the requirement to submit receipt, as noted above, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 24224 of 1997. In the interlocutory application the appellants prayed for a direction to the respondents to provisionally sanction the plan on their application already made on 18-6-1997 without reference to the said condition under item no. 6.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge, while issuing notice, passed the following interim order:"order: "respondents-MCH, shall now consider the application of the petitioners on condition of the petitioners depositing the amount as demanded through the impugned proceedings. The deposit of the amount shall, however, be subject to further directions to be passed in the Writ Petition, inasmuch as the petitioners questioned the very jurisdiction of the Corporation to collect the said amount. It is made clear that the respondent-Corporation shall have to refund the deposit to be so made by the petitioners, in case of the writ petition being allowed holding that the respondents-Corporation has no jurisdiction to collect the amount. There shall be an order accordingly. "it is the correctness of that order that is assailed in this Writ Appeal.

( 5 ) MR. S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the Municipal Corporation has no authority whatsoever to collect the amounts towards water and sewerage charges. He submits that if the respondents have no power to collect the amounts they ought not to have called upon the appellants to pay the amount with the hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short the board ) and produce receipt. He has invited our attention to Sections 17 and 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 (Act 15 of 1989) and submits that as those provisions have overriding effect, the prayer of the appellants ought to have been granted by the learned single judge.

( 6 ) MR. Ganta Rama Rao, the learned standing Counsel for the Municipal corporation, submits that under Section 112 (3-a), 388 (d), 429 (1) (b) and 444 (a) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 the respondents are under statutory obligation to ensure that sufficient provision is made for the purpose of providing water supply and sewerage. He states that the application of the appellants was forwarded to the competent authority, under act 15 of 1989, who estimated the amount at Rs. 4. 35 lakhs as the probable expenditure for supply of water and sewerage and that the respondents are discharging their statutory obligation in calling upon the appellants to submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document