- (1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to command Respondent No. 1 to withdraw its water connection forthwith and to submit past bills for adjudication to some Tribunals as required under the law.
(2.) Shortly put his case is that since the date of his purchase of the premises No. 17/5 (New) 5 (Old), Auckland Road, Allahabad he has been continuously paying house tax and water taxes respectively in regard thereto; he received a bill of Rs.2483.54P. (appending its copy as Annexure-1) in respect of excess water charge on the ground that the meter is defective, on receipt of which he sent a reply dated 19.11.1984 (appending its copy as Annexure-2) which was received in the officer of Respondent No. 1 on 29.11.1984 stating, inter alia, that the meter is not working and no charges for excess water was ever made since 1971, the year from which he has been living and pray that the dispute be referred under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to the Nigam (Tribunal) of the Jal Sansthan but no action has been taken, he has also given some more illustrations in regard to subsequent bills and his reply thereto.
(3.) Yesterday, we had passed the following order:- "Heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Petitioner. As prayed for by Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel appearing for the Jal Sansthan, Allahabad put up tomorrow to enable him to explain as to what was the basis of preparation of the document appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition which has been described as "Jal mulya ka bill-cum-notice", Allahabad Jal Sansthan, Khushru Bagh, Allahabad inasmuch as without stating as to whether the figure 5306400 mentioned in the caption 'khapat' litre/gallon is with reference to litter or gallon reminding Jal Sansthan that one of the words therein has not been struck off and there is a lot of difference between a litre and a gallon. It is a well settled law that doctrine of void and vagueness comes into play in all administrative action and whether for this vagueness the bill-cum-notice is fit to be ignored by the petitioner or not ? Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy,J. Sd/- Lakshmi BihariJ".;