VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No. 19714 of 2006 titled the Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd., Sukhjit Road, Phagwara v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 7006 of 2005 Harbinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 9656 of 2006 Kuldeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 11287 of 2005 Ashok Joshi and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 12727 of 2005 Pyare Lal Joshi and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 12860 of 2005 Tilak Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 12954 of 2005 Tarlok Chand Jain v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 13689 of 2005 Hem Raj Goyal and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 15763 of 2005 Pragati Sheel Naujawan Sabha v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 16350 of 2005 Harkaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 17747 of 2006 Vinod Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 17921 of 2005 Red Cross Sr. Citizen Day Care v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 18228 of 2006 Shiv Raj and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 18853 of 2005 Surinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 1901 of 2006 Ramesh Chander and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 19478 of 2005 Anil Pabbi and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 19983 of 2006 Wahid Sandhar Sugars Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 20089 of 2006 JCT Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 20194 of 2005 Ramgaria Sewa Society and another v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 2674 of 2006 Hardip Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 2833-2007 Kuldip Rai and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 2843-2007 Rajesh Chopra and another v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 3051 of 2006 Om Parkash Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 3412 of 2006 Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 4479 of 2006 Smt. Sarita Bhardwaj and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 4772-2007 Harvinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 5345 of 2006 Manjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 5670 of 2006 Gurmit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 5986 of 2006 Om Parkash and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 6064-2007 Gurpal Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 6341-2007 Hargulal Dhawan and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 6462 of 2006 Raghunath Dass Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 697 of 2006 Kuldip Chand and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 7651 of 2006 R.S.D. College Ferozepur City and another v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 8455 of 2006 Prem Parkash and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 9169 of 2005 Ghamdhur Singh v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 10440 of 2005 Simsi Dhir and others v. State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 10823 Dev Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases.
(2.) FOR the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP No. 19714 of 2006 titled The Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others. The petitioner Company registered under the Companies Act through its Joint Managing Director has challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 2/2/2003-3LGIV/6514 dated 2nd May, 2003 and letter dated 19.8.2003 attached as Annexures P-5 and P-6 issued by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 62-A(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") read with Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 increasing the sewerage and water charges to more than sixty times of the existing rates. The petitioners have also challenged the water and sewerage bills issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Municipal Council, Phagwara. The petitioner has also prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to issue fresh bills for the period from 1.7.2005 to 30.11.2006 at the rates which were in force prior to issuance of impugned. It is also claimed that the outstanding amount be not charged with retrospective effect nor any surcharge or interest be claimed as the amount due has already been paid.
(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the Municipal Council Phagwara issued bills for the period commencing from 1.12.2004 to 30.6.2005, in the sum of Rs. 28,980/-. The said bill was paid by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay sewerage charge @ 4,140/- per month. The petitioner company is not taking any water supply from respondent No. 3 and is only discharging the water after treatment in the treatment plant.;