Judgment :- 1. The two petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring Regulation 10 of the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board's Water Tax and Sewerage Tax (Levy & Collection), Regulation 1991 is ultra vites and beyond the powers of the Board and to direct the Corporatin of Chennai, i.e. fourth respondent to fix annual value for the property at No.6, L.B. Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 according to procedure prescribed under Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act and Rules made thereunder and consequently, forbear the respondents from seeking recovery of enhanced property tax and Water Tax and Sewerage Tax until the annual value of the Sid property is determined in accordance with law. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 6.10.2005. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted. After notice from this court, on behalf of the second respondent the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short CMWSSB), a counter affidavit, dated 29.5.2006 was filed. 3. Regulation 10 of the impugned regulation reads as follows: "10. The payment of Water and Sewerage tax shall be made as specified in the demand notice, Water and Sewerage Tax card or as intimated by the Board from time to time." 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent cannot charge Water and Sewerage Tax as per their own norms. Regulation 10 impugned in the writ petition is subject to Section 34 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978. It is also claimed that apart from the provisions of Sewerage Tax and Water Tax, there is no provision to claim any surcharge. Since Section 34(2) provides for levy of Water Tax, it should not be more than 35% and for Sewerage tax, it should not be more than 15% of the property tax. The respondent CMWSSB is bound to levy Sewerage tax and Water tax only on the basis of the property tax. In any event, it shall not exceed beyond 50% of annual property tax. Since the petitioners moved the City Civil Court with various suits and obtained decree and until such time, the Corporation of Chennai fixes a proper property tax, it is not open for the second respondent CMWSSB to claim Sewerage tax and Water tax on the basis of the enhanced value. Since the petitioners moved the City Civil Court with various suits and obtained decree and until such time, the Corporation of Chennai fixes a proper property tax, it is not open for the second respondent CMWSSB to claim Sewerage tax and Water tax on the basis of the enhanced value. In any event, there is no scope for collecting water charge which is not authorised under law. 5. Mr. S.J. Jagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the judgments and decree s in O.S.No.7439 of 1989 passed by the III Assistant City Civil Court, dated 2.8.1989, O.S.No.4021 of 1996 passed by the XIII City Civil Court, dated 13.10.1998 and O.S.No.2217 of 2003 passed by the V Assistant City Civil Court, dated 31.10.2003. 6. In the first two suits, the petitioners' claim was only against the Corporation. It is only in the third suit, i.e. O.S.No.2217 of 2003, the second respondent CMWSSB was a party. There the claim was that until the property tax and Municipal water tax is enhanced according to the statutory provision, no tax can be levied. The judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2003 is only a declaratory decree. Subsequent to the decree, notice has been issued for claiming property tax and based upon the same water and sewerage taxes. The intention of the petitioners was that they can execute the civil court decree is certainly mistaken. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not become an execution court to enforce the decree of the civil court. Since execution procedure has been prescribed under Order 21, it is for the petitioners to execute the decree in a manner known to law. 7. In the present case, there can be no quarrel that water tax and sewerage tax must be based upon the annual value of the property as fixed by the Corporation. What is contended is that there is no provision for sewerage charge and if that is added in the claim made by the second respondent, then it will exceed 50% of the annual property tax charged by the Corporation. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the petitioner has not paid water tax and sewerage tax and sewerage service charge till date as sworn-in in the affidavit. As per Sections 44, 47 and 81(2), they are entitled to charge as per the impugned notice. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the petitioner has not paid water tax and sewerage tax and sewerage service charge till date as sworn-in in the affidavit. As per Sections 44, 47 and 81(2), they are entitled to charge as per the impugned notice. With reference to power to levy charge, in paragraph 13, it was averred as follows: "13....it is submitted that the CMWSS Act 1978 is in accordance with Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978 which clerly envisages the manner in which water and sewerage tax and water supply and sewerage service charges shall be levied by the Board. Sec.34 of CMWSS Act 1978 reveals only about the taxes leviable by the Board and not about surcharge as stated by the petitioner is stated earlier. The Board is empowered to levy surcharge as per Sec.81(2)j of the CMWSS Act 1978 and not as per Sec.34 as contended by the petitioner. The water and sewerage tax is being levied at 7% of the annual value as assessed by CMC as per Sec.34 and 35(3) of CMWSS Act 1978. The Board is levying the water and sewerage tax in accordance with Sec.34 of CMWSS Act. The Regulation 10 & 27(ii) of CMWSSB water and sewerage tax and water supply sewerage service charges (levy and collection) Regulation are made in accordance with Sec.81(2)j of CMWSS Act 1978." 9. With reference to levy of water tax and sewerage tax, it is claimed that the Board is empowered to levy tax based on annual value. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the following averments found in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: "15....it is submitted that the Court case referred to by the Petitioner relates to Chennai Municipal Corporation and this Board is not a party in the suit proceedings. As per Sec.34 & 35(3) of CMWSSB Act 1978, the Board is empowered to levy water and sewerage tax based on the Annual Value fixed by Chennai Municipal Corporation. Since the CMC has assessed annual value of Rs.8,25,552/-with effect from II/93-94 and Rs.14,86,922/- from II/98-99. The same is adopted by the respondent Board which is as per Act and Regulation of the Board. Since the CMC has assessed annual value of Rs.8,25,552/-with effect from II/93-94 and Rs.14,86,922/- from II/98-99. The same is adopted by the respondent Board which is as per Act and Regulation of the Board. If the petitioner's property has not been assessed by CMC or reduced the Annual value as stated by the petitioner, the same has to be produced by the petitioner for necessary updation of the Board's records and to claim water and sewerage tax accordingly." 10. Further, in respect of the contention that water tax cannot exceed 25%, in paragraph 17, it was averred as follows: "17....it is submitted that the petitioner misunderstood that the water tax cannot exceed 25% of the property tax. The Section 24 of the Act clearly indicates that the water and sewerage tax shall not exceed 30% of the assessed annual value of the premises and not on property tax. Prior to formation of the Board, CMC was collecting 30% of the assessed annual value of the premises and not on property tax. Prior to formation of the Board, CMC was collecting 30% of the annual value as property tax. After formation of the Board during 1978, CMC has reduced the collection of property tax to 23% of the annual value leaving 7% to be collected by the Board as water and sewerage tax. Hence the levy of water and sewer tax at 7% per annum of the annual value is in order." 11. With reference to the claim of surcharge, in paragraph 18 of the counter, it was averred as follows: "18.....Surcharge is not an additional imposition or interest as contended by the petitioner. The same is being claimed towards delayed payment. Had the payments made within the stipulated period, the question of surcharge would not arise." 12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain decisions to contend that there must be a charging provision under the Act so as to make regulations in terms of that charging section and if any such levy is made without there being substantial provision, the same can be set aside, it is unnecessary to deal with those decisions exhaustively. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the pettioners are as follows: a) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. And another Vs. Union of India and another (2003) 2 SCC 614 . b) Sarojini Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the pettioners are as follows: a) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. And another Vs. Union of India and another (2003) 2 SCC 614 . b) Sarojini Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Dibrugarh, Assam and another ( AIR 1992 SC 1264 ). c) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and others (1992) 3 SCC 285 . d) Municipal Board, Bareilly Vs. Bharat Oil Company and others (1990) 1 SCC 311. e) Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 697 . 13. There is no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But, in the present case, Section 81(2)j is the charging section. Therefore, it cannot be said that levying of charge is illegal. Further surcharge is only an additional payment and not prohibited by the law from being charged as set out in the counter affidavit referred to above. The intention of the petitioners is after moving the civil court successfully to approach this court and get a blanket order from making any payment whatsoever. They cannot make use of this court to gain an illegal benefit. The argument that the impugned regulation is ultra vires cannot be sustained and there is no want of jurisdiction on the second respondent from charging any claim from the petitioners. 14. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and lack in merits. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.