Municipality cannot insist for security deposits.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

At the stage of admission, the respondent Municipality was notified and, accordingly, it is represented through a learned counsel. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

.2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19. 1994, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16260 of 1994. The petitioner Pudukkottai Municipality Tax Payers’ Sangam has sought for quashing the Notification bearing No.Na.Ka E2/8240/94 dated 17. 1994, published in ‘Daily Thanthi’ newspaper dated 27. 1994. According to the terms of the said notification, a resident of Pudukkottai, who wants to have water supply connection, shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000 if the connection is for domestic purpose Rs.4,000 if the connection is for factory purpose and Rs.6,000 if the connection is for commercial complex. The contention of the petitioner is that per Sec.132-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), unless the bye-laws are framed, prescribing the amount of security deposit to be made by the consumers of water, the Municipality is not entitled to demand security deposit, that as no such bye-law has been framed, it is not open to the Pudukkottai Municipality to demand security deposit from the consumers. It is not disputed before us that the bye-laws framed by the Pudukkottai Municipality do not provide for making security deposit for giving water supply connection. Of course, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, that the bye-laws are proposed to be amended and, according to the proposed amendment, the aforesaid security deposits for various categories of consumers are fixed for giving water-supply connection. But those byelaws, which have been submitted to the State Government, have not yet been approved; as such, the same have not come into force. It is submitted that though the bye-laws would come into force as and when the State Government approves them and are published them in the Gazette, the security deposit is demanded during the interregnum.

3. Sub-sec.(1), Sec.132-A of the Act specifically provides that "for all water supplied under Sec. 131 or under Sec.132, payment shall be made on such basis, at such times, and on such conditions as may be laid down in the by-laws made by the council and shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property-tax. Clause (a) of Sub-sec.(2) further provides that the bye-laws may "in cases of supply for domestic consumption and use, lay down the maximum free allowance to be made and the rates of charge to be levied in respect of water supplied in excess of such allowance. Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) further provides that the bye-laws may "in cases of supply whether for domestic consumption and use or for other purposes, or any class of such cases, lay down that the charge for water supplied shall be based on the number of the taps allowed, irrespective of the quantity of water consumed.

.4. Though the provisions contained in Sec.132-A of] the Act do not specifically mention about the security deposit, as the Municipal Council has to ensure payment of the water bills promptly according to the water consumed, we have no doubt that such a power vests in the Municipal Council under Sec. 132-A of the Act to demand security deposit, but such power. cannot be exercised unless bye-laws are framed. Sec.131 or Sec.132, which are referred to in Sec.132-A of the Act, relate to private water-supply for consumption and domestic use and powers of executive authority to enforce provision of water-supply and power of executive authority to supply water for non-domestic purposes respectively. Sec.306 of the Act relates to power of Council to make bye-laws on the subjects mentioned therein. Sec.310(1) of the Act provides that "no bye-laws or cancellation of alteration of a bye-law shall have effect until the same shall have been approved and confirmed by the State Governm