- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the notice of recovery by the concerned respondent authority for having more than one water supply connection unauthorizedly and illegally and in defiance of all the rules applicable to the present petitioner and therefore, by letter dated 14th June 2007, petitioner was directed to make the payment of Rs. 72,000/ -towards arrears of 36 months for two unauthorized connections and Rs. 1,650/ -towards cost of excavation. As the amount has not been paid, now, there is disconnection of the water supply.
(2.) HAVING heard the counsel for the both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to counter affidavit filed by the concerned respondent authority, I see no reason to entertain this petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner initially having one water connection, which is supplied by the respondent no. 1. Thereafter, an application was preferred for change of the location. Initial location is referred as location (A). Thereafter, an application was preferred on 31st May 1976 for shifting of water connection. The same was approved by letter dated 15th June, 1976 and the water connection location was change as location (B) with 15 mm diameter. (ii) It appears that thereafter again an application was preferred for transfer of the said water connection from location (B) to location (A) that was also granted. (iii) It appears that thereafter three connections were found out by the concerned respondent authority on 29th May, 2007 for the house of the petitioner. A rough sketch showing the three locations of water connection also annexed as Annexure (B) to the counter affidavit. (iv) It appears that the petitioner is entitled for only one water connection even as per the submission by the counsel for the petitioner and therefore a notice dated 14 June, 2007 was issued for the payment of 72,000/ -toward arrears for 36 months for two unauthorized connections and for payment of Rs. 1,650/ -towards cost of excavation. .(v) It appears that this letter/notice was replied by the present petitioner and insisted for re -verification of the facts. .(vi) The letter written by the present petitioner in reply of the notice, which is annexure -5 to the memo of the present petition. Looking to the second paragraph thereof, re -verification was sought for by the present petitioner of the fact that whether there is one water connection or more than one. (vii) It also appears that there was a re -verification also and three connections were found out. Out of which two were unauthorized. The report is also annexed with the counter affidavit. (viii) It is also stated that in the counter affidavit especially in paragraph 6 (k) that the petitioner had requested to waive or reduce the arrear amount or in the alternative allow him to pay the same in installments. .(ix) It is also stated that in the counter affidavit in paragraph 6 (n) that there is still one more evidence in representation made by one Ratan Sharma on 31 January 2008, which also goes against the present petitioner on factual aspect for more than one water connections. (3) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and looking to the highly disputed questions of fact, over and above for the reason that whether the respondent no. 1 can be termed to be a 'State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred to this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, especially when there are highly disputed facts having raised by the respondents whether there is one water connection or three water connections. (4) I hereby, dismiss this writ petition only on the ground that here is highly disputed questions of facts involved, which requires evidence to be laid by both the parties. I am not deciding whether the respondent State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India at this stage. This question is left upon for future. (5) This writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.;