Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant the petitioner-Company at No. 84, General Patters Road, Mount Road, Madras-2 exemption from payment of water and sewerage tax till such time water and sewerage connections are provided to its premises. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, as seen from the affidavit filed in support or the petition, is that the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of iron and steel fabrication. It is one of the factories in a cluster of several establishments inside the same vast compound situated in a busy locality in the Mount Road area near Odeon Talkies. It has employed 50 workers. It has provided a private toilet with septic tank facility as also a bore-well for the use of the workers. According to the petitioner, neither the petitioner company nor any other companies in the aforementioned compound has water supply or sewerage connection, and that the petitioner had been requesting the 1st respondent to arrange for these facilities. It is further stated in the affidavit that there cannot be a justifiable demand for water and sewerage tax without actually providing these facilities. It has been categorically stated to the first respondent that once the facilities were provided, the petitioner-company would unhesitatingly pay the bills as and when received. The petitioner Company also wrote letters on 6-4-1982 and 12-11-1982 to the Consumer Service Engineer, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Area-1, Division 93 requesting him to arrange for these facilities. The petitioner-company further wrote to the Controller of Finance, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Door No. 43-46, Greams Road. Madras-600006, on 8-6-1983 and 11-7-1983 stating that there is no water and sewerage connection to the premises in question and, therefore, they are not justified in raising any demand without providing these facilities. The Controller of Finance replied on 30-6-1983 stating that water and sewerage tax is payable by all that property owners irrespective of the fact whether water and sewerage facilities are available or not, as it is only a component of the property tax paid earlier by the property owners to the Madras Corporation, and as such, the demand raised by the Board will have t o be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has furher stated in the affidavit that by letter dated 18-6-1983, the Senior Accounts Officer No. 1, Madras Metropolitan Witer Supply and Sewerage Board, Area I, Madras-2, wrote to the petitioner Company that the petitioners request for cancellation of water and sewerage tax for the reason that its premises has no water supply or sewerage connection is not tenable as there is no provision in the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is a statutory body constituted under Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978 for the purpose of exclusively attending to the growing needs of and for planned development and appropriate regulation of water supply and sewerage services in the Madras Metropolitan area. The scheme of the Act would indicate that the tax cannot but be for the purpose of defraying the expenses connected with water and drainage system of the City and the first respondent under S. 34 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978 had the power to exempt any local area from the whole or portion of the water tax and sewerage on the ground that such area is not deriving any or the full benefit from the water supply or sewerage system or the first respondent may remit a portion of such taxes not exceeding one half on the ground that the premises concerned has remained vacant. On the basis of this, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner may approach Area Engineer-IV of the Board for getting water supply and sewerage connection for his premises. According to S. 34(1) and (2) of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978, the Board shall levy a water and sewerage tax on premises situated in city area and collect tax at 7% of the assessed annual value of the premises. The assessed annual value is fixed by the Corporation of Madras. According to that 1st respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay the water and sewerage tax to the Board from 1 -79 80 to 2-87 88 amounting to Rs 3,668-80 (except 1-84-85 & 2-85-86). The assessed annual value is fixed by the Corporation of Madras. According to that 1st respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay the water and sewerage tax to the Board from 1 -79 80 to 2-87 88 amounting to Rs 3,668-80 (except 1-84-85 & 2-85-86). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that according to S 34(3) of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, the exemption can be given only on the following conditions, namely, (a) with the consent of Government, and (2) if any local area is not deriving any or full benefit from water or sewerage service. A single house will not constitute an area mentioned in the S. 34(3). Hence the first respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. When the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Sundaravaradban submitted that he is confining his relief prayed for in the writ petition to only the exemption provided under S. 34(3) of the Act, and that he is not canvassing the question that without supplying water, they are not liable to pay water tax. However, he invited the attention of this Court to S. 34 of the said Act and also the decision in Corporation of Madras v. Sundaram (84 L.W. 884=1971-II-M.L.J. 365), and submitted that in view of S 34(3) of the Act, when there is no facility provided, the Board his got every power with the sanction of the Government to exempt a particular premise from paying the tax, and as such, the petitioner-Company requested the Board to give such exemption in the light of S. 34(3) of the Act, in respect of premises No. 84, General Patters Road, Mount Road, Madras-600 002. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that already a request has been made and the same has been turned down. On going through the letter dated 8.3.1983, which has been produced, it is found that the Senior Accounts Officer himself has rejected the application, and that too not under S 34 under which the petitioner prayed for cancellation of the demand for tax, on the ground that there is no provision for such cancellation. On going through the letter dated 8.3.1983, which has been produced, it is found that the Senior Accounts Officer himself has rejected the application, and that too not under S 34 under which the petitioner prayed for cancellation of the demand for tax, on the ground that there is no provision for such cancellation. I do not find anything in that letter to show that the first respondent-Board has considered the question of exemption under S. 34(3) of the Act so far as the premises in question is concerned. 5. In Corporation of Madras v. Sundaram 1 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering a similar question, had observed as follows: “It is a well-settled principle that where a public body is vested with a power or discretion, it is for exercise and not for inaction and it is especially so, when the power or discretion has been vested for the benefit of those who will be affected by its non-exercise. But, whether on the merits, the exemption should be extended to a particular area will be a matter of detail and will depend on several circumstances. If the Council thought that, having regard to the expenses the Corporation has to inc ur for providing in general a water drainage and lighting system for the city as a whole, it would not bs possible, without affecting its financial position to grant exemption, it would be within its discretion to deny exemption We do not understand proviso (d) to S. 102 as implying that the fact of non-provision of any of the facilities comprehended by it will by itself necessarilv compel the Council to grant exemption and that the area affected will be entitled as a matter of right it such an exemption. If exemption should follow, as a matter of right, the proviso should have been differently worded and not in the present form, which seems to leave the judgment to the council. XXXX The duty of the Council is to consider with reference to all the relevant facts and circumstances whether exemption to a particular area to anv extent under proviso (a) to S 102 is called for, and if so, whether the consent of the Government therefor should not be obtained. XXXX The duty of the Council is to consider with reference to all the relevant facts and circumstances whether exemption to a particular area to anv extent under proviso (a) to S 102 is called for, and if so, whether the consent of the Government therefor should not be obtained. The Council has failed to discharge that duty in regard to the area concerned” It is to be noted that S. 100(2) Proviso (a) of the old Act 1978 is in pari materia with S. 34 of the present Act. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to quote the said decision to the facts of this case. I do not think there can be any impediment for the first respondent-Board to consider the request of the petitioner with reference to S. 34(3) of the Act, and as such, certainly a direction can be given to the respondent No 1 in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to consider the question of granting the exemption under S. 34(3) of the Act on the application by the petitioner within three weeks from this date, with a copy to the Area Engineer IV, for Premises No. 84, General Patters Road, Mount Road. Madras 600 002, The first respondent Board is directed to dispose of the application, if so, filed as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.