- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 17-2-2004, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health and Engineering Services Department, Adityapur Sub-Division, Jamshedpur, (now Drinking Water Department) by which the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 55,574/- up to the period January, 2003 on account of Water charges and with a further warning that if the amount is not paid by 28-2-2004, the petitioner would be compelled to pay the charges up to the month of February, 2004. A further prayer has been made for quashing the demand notice, issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 55,574/- by way of arrears of bill for the period, April, 1996 to January, 2003. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to refund the excess amount realised by the Respondents from the petitioner. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows : - The petitioner is an Industrial unit and for the purposes of running its factory, it had obtained water connection from the Public Health and Engineering Department, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board'). The water connection was given to the petitioner's unit, sometime in the year 1995, but on account of huge dumping of raw material by the neighbourhood Factory, the supply line of the petitioner was disrupted resulting in stoppage of water supply to the petitioner's unit. The petitioner promptly informed the concerned authorities of the Respondents to correct the breach and to restore the water supply but in spite of reminders, the water supply to the factory was not restored. However, the petitioner continued to receive the bills every month from the Respondents on the basis of average billing at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month and he continued to deposit the bill amounts regularly, till the month of August, 1998. When even thereafter, the breach was not repaired and the water connection was not restored, the petitioner submitted an application in the month of December, 1998 to the concerned authorities of the Respondents, requesting to disconnect the water supply. As it appears even from the counter affidavit of the Respondents, the application for disconnection was though received by the Respondents, but the water connection was not officially disconnected. On the other hand, the Respondents continued to raise bills towards water charges not only at the original rate but also on the basis of the revised rates of Rs. 989/- per month. In the month of November, 2000, the Respondents, served a demand notice along with a bill demanding payment of an amount of Rs. 54,186/- claiming that the charges having accumulated by way of arrears till the month of November, 2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 528 of 2001. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents and with a corresponding direction to the Respondents, namely, the Respondent No. 3, the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., to consider the representation and the objections of the petitioner raised therein, and to take a decision by passing a reasoned and appropriate order, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In compliance, the petitioner filed a representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents on 12-11-2002. Upon receipt of the representation, the Executive Engineer by his letter dated - 3-11-2003, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer of the P.H.E.D. to conduct an enquiry and to submit Report. In response, the Sub-Divisional Officer submitted his Report of inspection dated -
(3.) -11-2003 (Annexure - 12), confirming therein that on spot inspection, it was found that the main pipe through which the water connection was extended to the petitioner's factory premises, had suffered breakage on account of heavy stone dumping and since September, 1995, no water supply was made to the petitioner's Factory. It was also affirmed that in December, 1998 the petitioner had submitted his application for withdrawal of the water connection. This was followed by a legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner indicating that if the water supply is not disconnected immediately, the petitioner would resort to legal proceedings. The Report also confirms that the petitioner had paid the water charges up to the month of July, 1998. It appears that in spite of the above categorical Report, the Respondent - Executive Engineer, by his impugned order, had declared that the petitioner has to pay the water charges at the previous rate till December, 1998 and at the enhanced rate, from the date of revision, i.e. from 1-1-1999 to 31-1-2003. The impugned order also declares that considering the order passed by the High Court, the petitioner was being given a concession / rebate of 50 per cent in the total bill amount. The demand for payment of the water charges till the month of January, 2003 has been made on the ground that though the petitioner had prayed for withdrawal of the water connection but he had not completed the requisite formalities, namely, deposit of Rs. 50/-, towards disconnection charges and further, that he had not paid the arrears of dues. 4. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the Respondents is more or less in consonance with the stand taken in the impugned order of the Respondents - Executive Engineer.;