- (1.) The petitioner No. 1, being the owner of the premises No. 11, Pollock Street, Calcutta was served with a notice having No. 000013 dated 24.4.2000 under sections 238 and 271 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") intimating as water supplied for domestic purpose was being used for purposes other than domestic, the petitioner should desist forthwith from such use of water for any purpose other than domestic purpose as it was in contravention of section 238 of the Act, failing which water connection would be cut off or turned off under section 275(1)(C) of the Act without any further reference. By letter dated 27.4.2000 the petitioner replied to the said letter intimating that the premises is wholly tenanted having offices therein, tenants do not use water for manufacturing purpose, no manufacturing work is done and water is not used for gardens or washing animals. It was stated water was not used for any commercial purpose as envisaged under section 238 of the Act and contravention of the provisions of the said section was denied. Request was made to withdraw the notice dated 24.4.2000.
(2.) Thereafter the Corporation issued another notice on 4.5.2000 under section 238 of the Act, having identical number, whereby the petitioner was requested to comply with the requisition contained in the notice dated 24.4.2000 within a week since it was not complied, otherwise filtered water connection to the premises might be cut off for non-compliance of the notice. The petitioner replied to the said notice dated 4.5.2000 intimating that compliance has been made by the petitioner.
(3.) According to the petitioners, on 11.8.2000 the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") cut off the water supply of the said premises, illegally and without providing any opportunity of hearing. It has been contended that the petitioners and the tenants pay fees for the supply of water and the allegation of infringement of section 238 made by the Corporation is unsustainable. Since, the building was constructed long ago, and as the Corporation collected fees from each of the tenants for the supply of water, the question of contravention of the provisions of sections 238 and 271 of the Act did not arise. It was stated that penal provisions under section 275 of the Act can be only invoked under certain circumstances mentioned therein. Since the notices did not disclose any ground for violation of section 238 of the Act, petitioners should have been given a hearing before disconnection of supply of water. Being aggrieved by the said notices and the disconnection of water supply, the petitioners moved the writ petition on 31.8.2000. Directions were issued to file the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply. Affidavits have since been exchanged. Pursuant to directions, the supply of water was restored on certain terms.;