G.Senthilkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary, Local Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT MADRASDATED :: 30-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANWRIT PETITION No.13856 OF 2008G.Senthilkumar...Petitioner-vs-1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary, Local Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104.3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.4.The Executive Officer, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, Selection Grade, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.5.The Chairman, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, DharapuramTaluk, Erode District....RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the recordsof the fourth respondent relating to Na,Ka.No.13/05, dated06.05.2008, quash the same and for a consequential direction to thefourth respondent to continue supplying water to the petitioner'sproperty in Selliamman Koil Street, Kolathupalayam, Dharapuram Taluk,Erode District. For petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel, for Mrs.R.Meenal.For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, Addl.Govt.Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondent 4 & 5 : Mr.M.DhandapaniO R D E RPetitioner owns a house in Kolathupalayam Town Panchayatand he paid a deposit of Rs.150/- for drinking water connection. On28.01.2008, he received a notice from the fourth respondent to paythe balance amount of Rs.2850/- out of Rs.3000/- towards enhancedminimum deposit, within 15 days. Since the same was not paid, on06.05.2008, the fourth respondent issued another notice to thepetitioner, directing payment of the difference in the deposit amountand the cost of the notice sent by registered post. Aggrieved overthe same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of thisWrit Petition. 2. The stand of the fourth respondent is that as per Rule22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10, dated 14.01.2003, thedeposit amount for water connection had been increased from Rs.150/-to Rs.3000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2850/- was to be paid bythe petitioner; accordingly, on 06.05.2008, the respondent sent anotice to the petitioner, directing him to pay the additional depositof Rs.2850/- for the water connection; on 15.05.2008, the DistrictCollector informed the petitioner that under Section 132 (A) of theTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the Town Panchayat had powerto collect the increased deposit; on 30.05.2008, the Chairman ofKolathupalayam Town Panchayat sent notice to all the Councillors andconvened the meeting on 05.06.2008 and passed resolution No.16, forcollecting additional deposit of Rs.2850/- from the people, who havegot water connection from this respondent panchayat and, therefore,there is no infirmity in the demand made by the respondent on thepetitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties andalso gone through the records.4. The only question that arises for consideration in thisWrit Petition is, whether the impugned notice of the fourthrespondent, dated 06.05.2008, demanding the petitioner to makeadditional deposit of Rs.2850/- towards drinking water connection, isin accordance with law ?5. To decide the above question, the relevant provisions tobe dealt with are : Rule 22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10,dated 14.01.2003; Sections 132 (A), 310 (1) and 310 (2) of the TamilNadu District Municipalities Act and Resolution No.16.6. Rule 22 (a) of the Erode District Gazette No.10 is tothe effect that whatever connections are given before the amendmentwill be treated as given under the said amendment and either thebuilder or the incumbent of the premises should bear the expenses https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pertaining to the water connection. The said amendment is dated14.01.2003. Though the said rule has a retrospective effect, it issilent as to the enhancement of deposit for drinking water connectionfrom Rs.150/- to 3000/-. Therefore, the said rule does not empowerthe authorities to enhance the deposit.7. Though Section 132 (A) of the District MunicipalitiesAct does not specifically mention about the security deposit, as theMunicipal Council has to ensure payment of water bills promptlyaccording to the water consumed, the Court has no doubt that such apower vests in the Municipal Council under Section 132-A, but suchpower cannot be exercised unless bye-laws to that effect are framed.8. Section 310 (1) of the Act provides that no bye-laws orcancellation or alteration of a bye-law shall have effect until thesame is approved and confirmed by the State Government. Sub-section(2) provides that any bye-law, when it is duly confirmed, shall bepublished in the District Gazette in English and shall come intooperation three months after it has been so published.9. It is the admission of the fourth respondent in thecounter that on 30.05.2008, Chairman of the Kolathupalayam TownPanchayat had sent notices to all the Councillors; convened a Meetingon 05.06.2008 and passed Resolution No.16, for collecting additionaldeposit of Rs.2850/- from the persons, who have got water connectionfrom the fourth respondent panchayat, on 05.06.2008, which was muchlater to the impugned demand, dated 06.05.2008, issued to thepetitioner. Further, the said resolution/bye-law was published inthe Erode District Gazette on 23.06.2008. 10. As per Section 310 (2) of the Act, any bye-law shallcome into operation only after three months after it has been sopublished in the District Gazette. In the present case, as the bye-law, demanding additional deposit of Rs.2850/-, having been publishedin the Erode District Gazette on 23.06.2008, the same shall beoperative only from 23.09.2008 and not before that.11. Despite the said clear provision, it is unfortunate tonote that the respondents had resorted to issue demand notice on thepetitioner, much before the bye-law coming into operation. As on thedate of issuing the impugned demand notice on the petitioner, therewas no bye-law operating, which empowered the fourth respondent toinsist on making enhanced security deposit. Therefore, without theproposed bye-law becoming operative, the insistence on making balanceenhanced security deposit cannot be approved as valid and lawful. 12. Admittedly, in this case, all the proceedings viz.,placing of resolution/bye-law in the Council Meeting and passing ofthe same by the Council; its publication in the District Gazette tookplace only after issuance of demand notice. The bye-law was pressedinto service premature when it had no operational effect. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the impugned demand notice, in my considered opinion, is ex facieillegal.13. A Division Bench of this Court, in PudukkottaiMunicipality Tax Payers Sangam v. The Commissioner, PudukkottaiMunicipality, 1995 (1) MLJ 210, relied upon by the learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioner, held that even though amendment to theexisting bye-laws may be in process, the amended bye-law cannotbecome operative until the same is confirmed by the State Governmentand published in the District Gazette in English and three months'time expires after it has been so published. 14. In view of what is discussed above, this Writ Petitionis allowed, setting aside the order impugned of the fourthrespondent, dated 06.05.2008. No costs. Consequently, the connectedM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrardixitTo1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Local Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 104.3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.4.The Executive Officer, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, Selection Grade, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Chairman, Kolathupalayam Town Panchayat, DharapuramTaluk, Erode District.+1 cc to Mr.M.Dhandapani, Advocate, SR.No.34030+1 cc to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate, SR.No.33515 W.P.No.13856 OF 2008BS {CO}TP/11.8.2009.