The central legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of the petitioner Association were in violation of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994, and the disconnection of water supply was illegal.

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the water and sewerage connections to the flat building known as "Cosmo Towers" at premises No.11/11A, New No.22, Dr. Thomas Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 under the pretext of non-payment of arrears of water and sewerage tax and water charges payable by the third and 4th respondents in respect of their respective flats.

2. The case of the petitioner Association is that the members of the petitioner Association had purchased various flats in the residential flat building known as "Cosmo Towers" at Premises No.11/11A, New No.22, Dr.Thomas Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17, promoted by M/s. Nair Fincon Limited, now called as M/s.Cosmo Foundations Limited, represented by its Director, the third respondent herein. The Association is having 30 members registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 with Registration No.102 of 2002. According to the petitioner, the third respondent made illegal constructions and some of the flats are retained by him for commercial purpose, though the flats were promoted for the construction of residential flats. The petitioner Association filed a suit in O.S.No.1576 of 2002 before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the third respondent and prayed for various reliefs including the relief of demolition of the illegal construction and for permanent injunction restraining the use of any flat for commercial purpose.

3. According to the petitioner, the said suit was decreed and the third respondent challenged the said judgment and decree by filing appeal in A.S.No.141 of 2006, which is now pending on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The fourth respondent is the owner of flat No.11/1 and it is averred in the affidavit that the said flat is used for commercial purpose i.e. for running a clinic, which is in contravention of the bye laws of the Association. The members of the petitioner Association while purchasing the flats had paid separate deposits for water and sewerage connections to respondents 1 and 2 through their promoter and each of their respective flats have been assessed to water and sewerage tax and water charges. All the members of the petitioner Association had fully paid their respective water and sewerage tax and water charges payable upto 31.3.2009 to the first respondent, as such there is no arrears of any tax and charges. According to the petitioner, officials of respondents 1 and 2 are threatening the petitioner Association that they are going to disconnect the water and sewerage connections for the entire apartments on the ground that respondents 3 and

4 are in arrears of water and sewerage tax and water charges in respect of their flats. The third and fourth respondents are not the members of the petitioner Association and they are disqualified from becoming its members due to their commercial activities carried in contravention of the bye laws of the petitioner Association and if respondents 3 and 4 are not paying the tax and charges, respondents 1 and 2 cannot disconnect the water supply and sewerage connections to the entire apartments. On the above said pleadings, the above writ petition is filed for issuing a mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from in any way interfering and disconnecting the water and sewerage connections to the "Cosmo Towers".

4. The petitioner Association also filed an additional affidavit dated 11.6.2009 by stating that the fourth respondent resides only at premises bearing Door No.16/3, Lakshmi Colony North Cresent Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and she is not residing in Flat No.A1 of "Cosmo Towers" and the said flat No.A1 is used for running her clinic, which is a commercial activity. It is also stated that the third respondent, who had promoted the apartment, is carrying on commercial activities in the flats retained by him, by running various businesses.

5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit by stating tha