Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the instant writ petition filed by the Petitioner, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned order dated 18.09.2007(Annexure P -14), by virtue of which, the Respondents reiterated the demand of the impugned amount, in lieu of water supply, by levying a penalty at the rate of Rs. 90,000/ - per month with effect from 05.06.2000, as per Rule 45(i) of the Water Supply Bye Laws 1960, raised vide various bills (Annexures P -1, P -2, P -6, P -11 and P -12) etc.
(2.) THE epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Micron Instruments Private Limited -Petitioner -Company (hereinafter to be referred as the Petitioner -Company, is running its business in Phase -I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. It installed a tubewell, without prior requisite approval of the competent authority in its premises. The Respondents raised a demand of Rs. 18 lacs vide letter/notice dated 17.11.2006(Annexure P -11) and an additional demand of Rs. 59 lacs, vide letter dated 16.112006 (Annexure P -12) in this behalf. Aggrieved by the demand letters (Annexures P -11 and P -12), the Petitioner -Company earlier filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 18771 of 2006, which came up for hearing on 28.11.2006 before a Division Bench of this Court and the following order was passed: Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to averments made in paragraph No. 9 of the writ petition, inter alia, states that even as per notification issued by Union Territory of Chandigarh on 05.06.2000, for digging up and running a tubewell of 2 diameter, the person concerned is supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,000/ - per month and in case of digging up of tubewell without any permission, as per the notification, only double the amount may be charged by the Corporation. Counsel further states that even if it is presumed that the Petitioner had dug up the tubewell in September, 2005, he can be charged only at the rate of Rs. 9,000/ - per month or may be at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ - per month, and as such, under no circumstances, the Petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 77.00 lacs. He further states that the Petitioner was asked to furnish information, vide letter, Annexure P/10 and within five days, he has been asked to pay Rs. 77.00 lacs vide Bill, Annexure P/12, which demand has been raised, even without affording any opportunity of hearing. Notice of motion for 15.12.2006. Dasti only. Subject to the Petitioner's depositing Rs. 18,000/ - per month from the month of September, 2005 with the Corporation, within three days from today, further recovery and disconnection of water connection of the Petitioner shall remain stayed. Copy dasti on usual payment.
(3.) NOT only that, the earlier writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2007, which is to the following effect: Taken up today. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to comply with communication dated 6.11.2006, Annexure P -10. The necessary affidavit/information shall be given to Respondent No. 2 within a week from today. Thereafter, further proceedings shall be taken up in respect of cross verification at site etc., under the provisions of Water Supply Bye Laws, 1960, as amended from time to time. Until the final decision is taken, the interim directions given on 28.11.2006 shall continue to operate. Disposed of in the above terms.;