Judgment :- 1. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which prays for a mandamus to direct the respondent to provide water supply to the petitioners premises, it is stated that the respondent was supplying water to the petitioner through a pipeline which cuts across the road and after entering into the petitioners premises leads to a tap connection within the premises of the petitioner. There was a failure of supply of water to the petitioners premises inspite of the fact that the petitioner had been paying charges therefor. 2. From the year 1979 onwards, the petitioner was corresponding with the respondent for the restoration of water supply and also protested against the levy and collection of water charges without providing water. In February, 1982, the petitioner submitted a representation in writing to the respondent in which an apprehension was voiced that the supply pipe to the petitioners premises might be clogged due to some defect in the water mains outside the premises of the petitioner. Apparently, the respondent investigated into the matter and by letter dated 3rd April, 1982, the Area Engineer informed the petitioner that the service line in the portion crossing the storm water drain outside the premises had been corroded and got damaged resulting in defective water supply to the premises. He suggested that the petitioners service line on the road portion be renewed so that the petitioner will have normal water supply. The petitioner was informed that the renewal of service line would be effected if the petitioner paid the cost therefor. 3. The petitioner questioned the claim of the respondent for payment of cost for the renewal of service line and contended that under S 46 of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1978, it is the responsibility of the respondent-Board to bear the expenses for effecting alteration, repair or maintenance outside the premises of the consumer. 4. This writ petition was admitted in the year 1982 and comes up for disposal only in the year 1990. When a specific question was asked of the petitioner as to what it has been doing for water, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the past 8 years the petitioner has been denied water supply even though it was prepared to pay water charges for the supply of water. When a specific question was asked of the petitioner as to what it has been doing for water, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the past 8 years the petitioner has been denied water supply even though it was prepared to pay water charges for the supply of water. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the order of Sathiadev, J., dated 5-1-1988 made in Mrs. S. Subbarathanam v. Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and another 1 which was followed by Venkataswami, J. in K. Narasimhan v. Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and another 2 by order dated 10-10-1988, irt both of which it was held that under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 the cost of repairing, maintaining and altering the water supply line upto the point of the petitioners premises will have to be borne only by the Board. Inspite of such clear pronouncements of this Court to which the respondent was a party. Mr. V. Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel, would attempt to distinguish the abovesaid decisions to the facts of the present case by contending that the respondent is not obliged to bear the cost and it is only the petitioner who has to bear the cost. 5. S. 46 of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 reads as follows : “Control over house and other connections:— (i) All house-connections whether within or without the premises to which they belong, with the Boards water supply mains shall be under the control of the Board, but shall be altered, repaired and kept in proper order, at the expense of the owner of the premises to which they belong, or for the use of which they were constructed : Provided that the expenses of such alteration, repair or maintenance outside the premises shall be borne by the Board. (2) All connections to the mains of the Board for water supply to premises, street hydrants including fire hydrants and places of public resort and all pipes, taps and other fittings used for such supply shall be made, maintained and regulated in such manner and at such charges or fees for connection or reconnection as may be prescribed.” 6. The Proviso to S. 46(1) is clear and unambiguous. The Proviso to S. 46(1) is clear and unambiguous. Even though under the main part of S. 46(1) it is at the expense of the owner of the premises all house connections, whether within or without the premises shall be altered, repaired and kept in proper order at the expense of the owner of the premises, yet, the Proviso states as follows : “Provided that the expenses of such alteration, repair or maintenance outside the premises shall be borne by the Board.” It is not in dispute that the water supply to the petitioners premises had failed because the pipeline outside the petitioners premises lying on the road portion and connected with the Metropolitan water supply mains is corroded and damaged. In order to restore the supply, the Area Engineer of the respondent Board had indicated that the portion of the pipeline outside the premises of the petitioner will have to be renewed. However, the Area Engineer would ask the petitioner to bear the expenses for the same. When a question arose whether for repairing, altering or maintaining the water supply line lying outside the consumers premises, there is a liability on the part of the consumers to bear the cost, this Court in W.P. No. 7089 of 1980, referred to above, on a careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act held that the respondent-Board has to bear the cost for repairing, maintaining or altering the water supply line upto the point of the consumers premises. This decision has been followed by Venkataswami, J., in W.P. No. 1553 of 1988, already referred to. 7. Mr. V. Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Board would seek to distinguish the said decisions of this Court by contending that in both those decisions this Court was concerned with the case of repair, alteration and maintenance and not with the case of renewal of the pipe-line. He would submit that the expenses relating to renewal should be borne by the consumer be it inside or outside his premises. He would rely on S. 46(2) in support of his plea. He would submit that the expenses relating to renewal should be borne by the consumer be it inside or outside his premises. He would rely on S. 46(2) in support of his plea. S. 46 (2), to repeat, is as follows : “46 (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) All connections to the mains of the Board for water supply to premises, street hydrants including fire hydrants and places of public resort and all pipes, taps and other fittings used for such supply shall be made, maintained and regulated in such manner and at such charges or fees for connection or reconnection as may be prescribed ” S. 46(2) on its terms deals only with the levy of charges or fees for connection or reconnection. The petitioner has obtained the connection long back. There is also no question of reconnection because the question of reconnection would arise only if the water supply connection had been cut off probably for nonpayment of charges and reconnection is sought after payment of charges. Therefore, S. 46(2) is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The facts as stated above would clearly bring the cas e of the petitioner within the Proviso to S. 46(1). This is a case where the pipe-line lying outside the premises of the petitioner requires repair. The word ‘repair’ is comprehensive. It would include repair to the extent of removal of defective portion of the pipe line and its replacement with a strong pipe-line. ‘Repair’ does not merely mean only plugging the holes as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, the work that the Area Engineer suggested to be carried out for restor ation of water supply is a work which would come within the Proviso to S. 46(1), namely, a repair that would ensure the maintenance of water supply. The expenses relating to the repair by renewal of the pipeline outside the petitioners premises have necessarily to be borne by the respondent-Board. The Area Engineer by compelling the petitioner to pay the cost of such work has de prived the petitioner of a facility which he was otherwise entitled to. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is given time till 15-5-1990 for carrying out the repairs. The petitioner would be entitled to his costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500.