GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) IN the present writ petition, the petitioners, who are 46 in number, are seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1 st respondent-Board in not providing individual water connections to the applicants in S. R. K. Puram under Alkapuri Section in L. B. Nagar Municipality area inspite of collecting contribution of Rs. 4,000/- from each of the applicant and others, who are similarly situated, for laying the pipelines and the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting for enforcement of the provisions contained in Board Proceedings No. 88, dated 20-1-1997 after payment of water supply connection charges as illegal, void and consequentially to direct the respondents to provide individual water connections to the petitioners herein forthwith, keeping in view the responsibility of the Municipality in providing such connections even prior to the transfer of responsibility of water supply to the 2nd respondent, after declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to discharge the statutory functions of the Municipality in connection with water supply to the residents of the locality in question as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution. ( 2 ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is the statutory duty of the Municipality to supply drinking water to the residents of every locality in the Municipality as per Sections 138, 140 and 142 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short "the Act" ). The 1st respondent-Board being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is under the obligation to discharge the statutory duty of providing drinking water as per the Act 15 of 1989 viz. , the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 (for short "the Sewerage Act" ). ( 3 ) THE L. B. Nagar Municipality desired each of the holder of the house in the locality to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/-by way of donation to have drinking water supply scheme, and accordingly, a society by name, Income Tax Department Employees Saroornagar Co-operative House Building Society (for short "the Society") collected the said amounts from each individual including the petitioners herein, and that an amount of Rs. 4,000/-by way of donation to have drinking water supply scheme, and accordingly, a society by name, Income Tax Department Employees Saroornagar Co-operative House Building Society (for short "the Society") collected the said amounts from each individual including the petitioners herein, and that an amount of Rs. 9,18,400/- was deposited by the said society on behalf of the petitioners and others, who are similarly situated, and the 2nd respondent-Municipality has received the said amount. Out of this amount, in April 1996 itself, an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- was deposited by the 2nd respondent-Municipality with the Public Health Department and it laid the pipelines for two of the six roads of the colony. The balance amount of Rs. 4,73,400/- was also remitted by the 2nd respondent-Municipality to the 1st respondent-Board on 10-12-1996. While so, the Engineering staff of the 1st respondent-Board estimated the cost of laying the pipelines on the remaining roads of the colony at Rs. 25. 30 lakhs. This amount was sought to be collected from the residents though there is no statutory provision. However, 50% of the said estimated cost was paid by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under P. V. P. Scheme, and thus, the respondents have failed to discharge their functions, which according to the petitioners, amount to dereliction of duty. ( 4 ) IT is stated that the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality wrote a letter dated 22-7-1994 to the General Manager (Engg.), Operation and Maintenance of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, requesting for arranging connections and release of the water at the earliest. In that letter, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 9,76,556/- was remitted by way of a cheque dated 22-7-1994 drawn in favour of the Director, Finance of the 1 st respondent-Board for off-take arrangements at 1000 mm PSP gravity main line, Phase-III of alkapuri. By G. O. Ms. No. 44, dated 19-1-1993, the collection of donation amount "was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/ -. Earlier it was only Rs. 2,000/ -. Thereafter, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality informed the President of the Joint Action Committee, to collect the donations from the individuals and to remit the same to the Municipality. By G. O. Ms. No. 44, dated 19-1-1993, the collection of donation amount "was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/ -. Earlier it was only Rs. 2,000/ -. Thereafter, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality informed the President of the Joint Action Committee, to collect the donations from the individuals and to remit the same to the Municipality. However, the Joint Action Committee by its representation dated 24-9-1994 requested the Minister for Municipal Administration to exempt the colonies where pipelines are existing from paying the donation in view of the economic position of some of the residents of the localities. Another representation dated 24-2-1995 was also made by the Society addressed to the Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health, requesting for laying separate pipelines for supply of Manjeera water to the extent where no pipelines are existing and expressed their inclination to pay the donation of Rs. 4,000/- as contemplated in the said G. O. and requested the authorities to treat the residents of their locality on par with the residents of other colonies in the locality in connection with the supply of Manjeera Water. While so, by letter dated 14-7-1995, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality addressed a letter to the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health, in response to his letter dated 14-6-1995 and the addressee was informed that the water supply proposals were under formulation under Mega City Project, for the entire Ward No. 5, which included R. K. Puram. Thus, the action of the 2nd respondent-Municipality, according to the petitioners, was nothing but postponement of the responsibility. ( 5 ) THE Superintendent Engineer, Public Health, in a letter addressed to the 2nd respondent-Municipality requested the 2nd respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 14. 45 lakhs with the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Hyderabad, at the earliest in order to take up the works immediately. The society again submitted a representation to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Special Officer, L. B. Nagar Municipality on 26-3-1996 requesting him to enquire into the delay caused in laying the pipelines and to direct expediting of the laying of pipelines. A cheque dated 27-4-1996 for an amount of Rs. 4. 45 lakhs, as desired by the Public Health authorities, the Executive Engineer, Public Health was requested to commence the work immediately and to complete within time, yet there was no progress in laying the pipelines. A cheque dated 27-4-1996 for an amount of Rs. 4. 45 lakhs, as desired by the Public Health authorities, the Executive Engineer, Public Health was requested to commence the work immediately and to complete within time, yet there was no progress in laying the pipelines. Thereafter, in a letter dated 19-8-1996, the Executive Engineer, Public Health, was again requested by the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality to survey the colony and to prepare the estimates in the light of the representations made by the Society in question. On receipt of the representation from the House Building Society dated 19-6-1996, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality again addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, Public Health, and requested him to take immediate necessary action. In response to the said letter dated 19-8-1996, the Executive Engineer, Public Health, addressed a letter requesting the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent-Municipality to remit an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of a demand draft for taking further necessary action for laying the pipelines. Ultimately, the Society addressed a letter dated 27-12-1996 to the 1st respondent-Board complaining against the delay in laying the pipelines. In the said letter it was also stated that 224 residents of the colony have paid a total amount of Rs. 9,18,400/- including the payment made by 80 residents at the rate of Rs. 280/- towards connection charges and to complete laying of the remaining distribution pipelines in the locality. Out of this amount, the Municipality paid an amount of Rs. 4. 45 lakhs on 27-4-1996 to the Public Health Department for laying the distribution pipelines in the colony. The Public Health Department laid the pipelines on R. Nos. 1, 2 and part of R. No. 3 of the colony, leaving part of road No. 3 and road Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and cross Road No. 1. It is stated that the supply of drinking water to the residents under L. B. Nagar Municipality has been handed over to the Hyderabad Metro Water and Sewerage Board by the Government with effect from 1-12-1996 and that the Municipality has transferred the balance amount remitted by the residents of Rs. 4,73,400/- through a letter dated 10-12-1996 enclosing a cheque for the said amount. 4,73,400/- through a letter dated 10-12-1996 enclosing a cheque for the said amount. It is stated that the members of the society are not aware of the estimated cost of the scheme arrived at by the Public Health Department and also the amount actually spent by them out of the amount of Rs. 4. 45 lakhs. As more than two years rolled since the society started its efforts, it requested the Board to give suitable instructions to the engineers in-charge of their area to prepare the estimates for laying the balance distribution pipelines in the colony and take up the work immediately. While so, in proceedings No. 475/cpo/pvp/96, dated nil of January, 1997, the Collector has stated that an amount of Rs. 163. 51 lakhs was allotted by the Government as Sramadanam fund for the year 1996-97 to meet the expenditure for the works taken under Sramadanam subject to terms and conditions mentioned in G. O. Ms. No. 8, dated 19-2-1996 and accorded administrative sanction with an estimated value of Rs. 24. 70 lakhs for execution under the 2nd round of Sramadanam Programme and accordingly released an amount of Rs. 12. 35 lakhs towards Government share of 50% Sramadanam fund to take up the work. While so, by a letter No. 838, dated 6-6-1997, the Chief General Manager (Engg.) Operation and Maintenance Circle No. 1, Khairatabad, had informed the Society, Ramakrishnapuram, that a total amount of Rs. 22. 5 lakhs was deposited by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, out of the estimated amount of Rs. 25. 3 lakhs for laying pipelines to the colony and accordingly, the society was requested to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2. 7996 lakhs to enable the department to ground the work. Thus, the entire correspondence referred to above reflects that the respondent No. 1 has been insisting for the payment of extra amount as estimated by the Engineering Department of the 1 st respondent-Board and the Public Health Department for laying the pipes for supply of drinking water to the locality. 7996 lakhs to enable the department to ground the work. Thus, the entire correspondence referred to above reflects that the respondent No. 1 has been insisting for the payment of extra amount as estimated by the Engineering Department of the 1 st respondent-Board and the Public Health Department for laying the pipes for supply of drinking water to the locality. The said action of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition on the following among other grounds: ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Act 15/ 89 was amended by Act 4/97 and this Act was initially intended to extend to the whole of Hyderabad Metropolitan area with effect from the date as notified by the Government by issuance of a notification. The Hyderabad Metropolitan area is defined in Section 2 (f) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989, which reads as follows: "hyderabad Metropolitan area" means the Area of the Hyderabad Urban District and includes such other areas adjacent thereto as the Government may, by notification from time to time, specify; ( 7 ) IT is only with effect from February, 1997 the said Act was extended to the municipal areas covered by the adjacent Municipalities including the L. B. Nagar Municipality. The responsibility of the Municipality to supply water by providing water connections to the individual houses was transferred to the Board constituted under Section 3 of the said Act 15/89 and therefore, the Board has become the successor authority with a power to supply water by providing water connections to the individual houses with a corresponding responsibility of discharging the functions of the Municipality taking into account the failure on the part of the Municipality in providing water connections for all these years even after collecting the amounts required to be paid by the persons in the locality seeking a provision for individual connections to their houses after paying the amounts including the contributions required to be paid by them to a tune of Rs. 4,000/ -. Further, it has been the statutory duty and responsibility of the Municipality to provide water connections to those persons after laying the pipes and for that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was also collected as contribution. The Act provides for collecting particular specified amount of Rs. 280/- for providing individual connections. 4,000/ -. Further, it has been the statutory duty and responsibility of the Municipality to provide water connections to those persons after laying the pipes and for that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was also collected as contribution. The Act provides for collecting particular specified amount of Rs. 280/- for providing individual connections. But, it has become the practice of the Municipality to collect the application fee and the required amount and having paid such amount, yet they were not permitted to have their connections, and in any event, the petitioners herein were entitled even before the notification that was issued extending the Act 15/89 to the area in question by virtue of a notification issued by the Government and such rights of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be further frustrated. The action of the respondent Board in insisting for collection of certain amounts keeping in view the tariff that was fixed for supply of water to individual connections as issued in Board Proceedings No. 88, dated 20-1-1997 became effective from 1-2-1997 to the end of December 1997 and therefore, the tariff cannot be given retrospective effect and the 1 st respondent-Board is not entitled to insist for payment of Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 11,000/-depending upon the extent of the area of each of the petitioner. ( 8 ) MR. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent-Board submits that the present colony is not forming part of Hyderabad Metropolitan area as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Sewerage Act, and therefore, the L. B. Nagar Municipality is not part of Hyderabad Metropolitan Area. By virtue of G. 0. 140, dated 18-3-1996, it is stated that the Board has resolved to take over distribution of water supply in 9 surrounding Municipalities and at present the water supply improvements in these 9 municipalities are being taken up by the Public Health Engineering Department and that the Managing Director of 1 st respondent Board has requested the Government to permit the Board so as to enable to take up water supply extensions and improvements in the 9 surrounding Municipalities pending taking over the entire water supply maintenance system from the 9 surrounding Municipalities. The Government however, accorded permission permitting the Board to take up water supply extensions and improvement in the 9 surrounding Municipalities. The Government however, accorded permission permitting the Board to take up water supply extensions and improvement in the 9 surrounding Municipalities. He further submits that it is only a tentative arrangement pending final decision, and without therebeing a notification issued under Section 2 (f) of the Act, the petitioners cannot be permitted within the purview of Hyderabad Metropolitan area so as to extend and apply the provisions of the said Act, and therefore, the question of paying tariff does not arise. ( 9 ) HE further submits that in the entire affidavit there is no allegation that the amount so transferred to the Board still remains with the Board. The Board had already undertaken the remaining laying of 4 roads, which were not completed by the Public Health Department and the amount so remitted was spent exclusively for laying the main distribution line and nothing remains with the Board. He also submits that there is no averment or allegation in the affidavit to that effect that the amount still remains with the Board un-spent. Consequent upon handing over of the Municipality to the Board, the Board had laid main distribution line and feeder line and by virtue of the notification, the Board is vested with the power and authority to comply with the provisions of the Act. The expression "water supply" includes laying of pipelines, main distribution line and also other requirements for the purpose of making necessary individual water connection and each individual has to apply for the water connection as per Section 22 of the Sewerage Act. He has also drawn my attention to Section 17 of the said Act vesting of work on the Board. He has drawn my attention to the object of the Act and also the definitions: "main" means a pipe laid for the purpose of giving a general supply of water as distinct from a supply to individual consumers and includes any apparstus used in connection with such a pipe. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel contends that laying of main distribution line comes within the purview of Section 2 (i), but it excludes the individual consumer from making any application seeking individual connection. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel contends that laying of main distribution line comes within the purview of Section 2 (i), but it excludes the individual consumer from making any application seeking individual connection. Likewise, he has also drawn my attention to the definition of Section 2 (u) of the Sewerage Act, which reads as under: "trunk main" means a main constructed for the purpose of conveying water from a source of supply to a filter or reservoir or from one filter or reservoir to another filter or reservoir, or for the purpose of conveying water in bulk from the part of the limits of supply to another part of those limits, or for the purpose of giving or taking a supply of water in bulk. " ( 11 ) THEREFORE, for the supply of water in bulk, even the Government and other corporations and local bodies, they have to take individual connections on such terms and conditions and payment as prescribed by the Board. ( 12 ) HE has also drawn my attention to Section 30 i. e. , powers to lay service pipes, etc. The Board may, in any street or any land referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 29, whether within or without the local limits of the Hyderabad Metropolitan area, lay such service pipes with such stopcocks and other water fittings as it may deem necessary for supply of water to premises and may, from time to time, inspect, repair, alter or renew and may, at any time, remove any service pipe laid in such street or land whether under this Act or otherwise. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the rules framed under the Act. The tariff fixed in B. P. Ms. No. 88 was made on 20-1-1997 effective from 1-2-1997, but, however, in the instant case, the work was completed in the month of December, 1997. So the petitioners are bound by the Board Proceedings issued on 20-1-1997 and in that the tariff has been fixed for water supply and sewerage connection effective from February, 1997. Category No. 1 deals with individual connections and others covered by Categories 2 to 4. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the actual handing over took place on 1-12-1996 by virtue of G. O. Ms. Category No. 1 deals with individual connections and others covered by Categories 2 to 4. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the actual handing over took place on 1-12-1996 by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 140 and secondly he contended that the 2nd respondent s liability arises only after the taking over and thirdly he contended that the petitioners have not challenged the B. P. in which tariff has been fixed. Some of the petitioners have already applied by fulfilling the requirement under B. P. and furnished the list of 227 persons who have applied individually and obtained connections in which 10 to 12 petitioners are also there. Under those circumstances, there is no justification to contend that the action of the Board in asking the petitioners to apply individually for seeking individual connections is in accordance with the rules and vested with the power and also as per B. P. Ms. No. 88 and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Board. He has drawn my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gomathi v. M. C. H. , 1998 (1) ALT 760 (DB), wherein their Lordships in paragraph 9 of the judgment have held as follows: a perusal of the provisions of Section 17 of Act 15 of 1989, extracted above, shows that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, viz. , on or from 5th July, 1989 all public reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells etc. , connected with the supply of water to Hyderabad Metropolitan area includes the head works, reservoirs etc. , and all land (not being private property) adjacent and appurtenant to the same, shall vest in the Board constituted under Act 15 of 1989 and will be subject to its control. Section 22 of the Act 1989 which commences with non-obstante clause, directs that notwithstanding anything contained in Act 15 of 1989 or any law, contract or other instrument for all water supplied under the Act payment shall be made at such rates, at such times and under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations; there is power to prescribe different rates for supply of water for different purposes and for different quantities. There can be no doubt that Section 22 is given overriding effect over the provisions of Act 15 of 1989 or any other law (including the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955), but that is only for the purpose of collecting the charges for supply of water by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board under the Act as the responsibility of supply of drinking water is the obligation of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. This provision, in our view prima facie, cannot be so construed as to hold that the respondents have no power to satisfy themselves regarding making necessary provisions for supply of water and sewerage connections etc. , to cater to the needs of the occupants of any fnultistoreyed building, in exercise of power under Sections 112 (3-a), 388 (d), sub-sections (1) (b) and (1) (d) of Section 429 of the Hyderabad Municipalities Act (sic Municipal Corporations ). By the impugned letter of September 19, 1997 the second respondent did not call upon the appellants to remit or deposit the amount towards supply of water or drainage and sewerage in the Office of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad but requested them to produce receipt of payment of the amount estimated as payable by the concerned authority under Act 15 of 1989 to satisfy that adequate provision has been made for supply of water and sewerage connections. We have no hesitation in holding that the respondents have such a power under the said provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act for purposes of according sanction of the proposed construction. " ( 15 ) SECTION 22 of the Act has overriding effect over all other laws including other enactments namely Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or other Municipalities Act and by virtue of this overriding effect, the petitioners are bound to follow and the Board is justified in insisting upon the petitioner to apply individually in accordance with B. P. Ms. No. 88 after making necessary application in the prescribed format, together with requisite tariff prescribed therein. Some of the petitioners applied and got connections, and it is not proper on the part of the petitioners now to contend that mere payment of Rs. 4,000/-towards donation ipso facto disentitles them from seeking individual connections under the provisions of the Act. No. 88 after making necessary application in the prescribed format, together with requisite tariff prescribed therein. Some of the petitioners applied and got connections, and it is not proper on the part of the petitioners now to contend that mere payment of Rs. 4,000/-towards donation ipso facto disentitles them from seeking individual connections under the provisions of the Act. I do not agree to the contention and the said contention is rejected inasmuch as the Board is vested with the power and it undertook the responsibility to supply drinking water to the petitioners and for that purpose, the Board had laid the main distribution line with regard to the amount which they have received from the petitioner society, which was spent towards laying of distribution line, which work was unfinished and uncompleted by the Public Health Department and the respondent No. 1 completed the same in the month of December, 1997 and thus the Board is justified in asking the petitioner to apply for individual connections for seeking drinking water connections to their houses after payment of requisite fees or tariff prescribed in B. P. Ms. No. 88 and also in accordance with the rules. The petitioners have to comply with the requirement of the act. ( 16 ) AS regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioners do not fall within the area of operations of Hyderabad Metropolitan, I do not agree with the contention inasmuch as the Government itself has issued G. O. Ms. No. 140 handing over the 9 surrounding Municipalities to the Board to undertake the responsibility of supply of drinking water to the petitioners, and in that view of the matter the Board has laid the main distribution line so as to enable the residents of the society to obtain individual connections and for that they have to apply by prescribed form along with prescribed fees as per B. P. Ms. No. 88. It is only after that they have to be considered for individual connections. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Thus, the action of the Board is justified in asking the petitioner to apply for individual connections in accordance with the tariff made in B. P. Ms. No. 88. The mere payment of Rs. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Thus, the action of the Board is justified in asking the petitioner to apply for individual connections in accordance with the tariff made in B. P. Ms. No. 88. The mere payment of Rs. 4,000/- was only towards donation for laying main distribution line and in the absence of any averment that the amount was not spent towards laying of main distribution line and that the amount remains with the Board, the Board is justified in insisting upon the petitioners to apply for individual connections. ( 18 ) IN the result, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.