Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2580
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Khivraj Tech Park Pvt. Ltd., rep by its General Manager -Operations, A. Lakshminarayanan
Versus
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, rep by its Managing Director & Another
W.P.Nos.23218 & 23668 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 2 of 2008
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Petitioner: R. Muthukumarasami, SC, D.B.R. Prabhu, Adovcate.
For the Respondents:P. Wilson, Additional Advocate General, B. Mani, Standing Counsel for CMDA.
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for water and sewerage connections constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Headnote:
Water and Sewerage Connection Charges - Statutory Compliance - Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 - [WATER AND SEWERAGE CONNECTION CHARGES] - [Statutory Compliance] - [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978, Section 6(2)(xii), Chapter II]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private Limited Company, sought a direction to process their application for water supply and sewerage service connections. The company had constructed a building without a completion certificate and had minimal deviations from the compliance certificate norms. The court had previously directed the authorities to provide water and sewerage connections without insisting on a completion certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirements for submitting a proper application form and supporting documents for water and sewerage connections. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioner's attempt was an abuse of the court process.
Issues: Non-compliance with statutory requirements for water and sewerage connections, abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to submit a proper application form and supporting documents for water and sewerage connections amounted to non-compliance with statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the petitioner's attempt to achieve collateral benefits through interim orders was an abuse of the court process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.25,000.
1. The petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same. The petitioner is a private Limited Company represented by its General Manager (Operations). In the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.23218 of 2008, the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to process the application of the petitioner dated 30.8.2006 for which charges were already paid by the petitioner and to complete water supply and sewerage service connections in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4088 of 2008, dated 6.3.2008. When that writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short Metro Water) took notice. Pending the writ petition, though an interim direction was sought for, no orders were passed on the application.
2. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aware of the order passed by the respondent Metro Water, dated 31.07.2008, wherein and by which the petitioner was directed to pay water and sewerage connection charges as per the application form enclosed. They were asked to apply along with the challan and other documents. They were also requested to furnish a proof of having paid the Infrastructure Development charges to the Metro Water for further action. A copy of the said order is also found enclosed in pages 19 and 20 of the typed set. However the petitioner was not asked to enclose the completion certificate in view of the earlier order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner sent representations, dated 14.8.2008 and 1.9.2008. Even without any change of circumstances and as they did not get further orders on the last representation, they filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.23668 of 2008 challenging the order dated 31.7.2008 demanding the water and sewerage connection charges as per the application form.
3. In the impugned order, they were clearly informed that the order came to be passed only after taking note of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4088 of 2008, dated 6.3.2008. In the second writ petition, they had also taken out an application for an interim direction. The writ petition was not admitted, but after hearing the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Additional Advocate General, K.Suguna, J. by an order dated 13.10.2008 gave a direction to the respondents Metro Water. In paragraph 4 of the order, it was stated as follows:
"4. Taking note of the arguments of both sides, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by the directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such payment, the respondents shall give water and sewerage connection to the building in question within a period of two weeks. Besides that, the petitioner is also directed to submit a proper application form seeking water and sewerage connection within a period of one week from the date of this order. However, the said payment and the submission of application form by the petitioner is subject to the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition is closed."(Emphasis added)
By the order granting an interim direction, the court had virtually granted the main relief but without going into the merits of the case except that the direction was given to the petitioner to submit a proper application form seeking water and sewerage service connections though it was made subject to the result of the main writ petition.
4. In the light of the subsequent writ petition, practically nothing survives in the first writ petition. It was agreed that the first writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.23218 of 2008 may be dismissed along with its miscellaneous petition as the issue had survived for consideration in the subsequent writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.No.23218 of 2008 will stand dismissed.
