Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4113 (MAD)

B. Subbulakshmi v. Commissioner, Corporation of Salem

2013-12-06

V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
Judgment 1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr.S.Sathyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/Corporation of Salem. 3. What is challenged in this writ petition is the property tax notice issued by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.24,024/-, otherwise under Section 204(d) of the Salem City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, (for short 'the Act') water connection to the house of the petitioner would be disconnected, with a prayer to quash the said notice and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent restraining them from taking coercive steps against the petitioner and also for rectification of the problem in the water service connection assessment No.1014186 and to provide water supply to the petitioner premises. 4. The petitioner pleaded that the first respondent has provided the water connection to the petitioner premises and she paid all the necessary and ancillary charges thereto in the year 2005. The respondent authority provided water supply. Though water supply connection was installed, he was not getting water from the service connection. Therefore, he was buying water from outside by paying money and using his borewell water for other than drinking purposes and he has been put into problem in getting the corporation water. In this regard, he has given representations to the respondent on various occasions and finally on 28.01.2013. Thereafter, the prosecution notice was issued on 22.11.2013 without following the procedure contemplated in the Act and therefore, there cannot be disconnection of water connection and further this impugned demand notice has been issued without providing any opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. On the above submissions, I have heard Ms.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/Corporation of Salem. 6. Admittedly, the impugned notice has been issued for payment of the property tax calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.24,024/- otherwise there will be disconnection of water supply. Before issuing such notice, the problem which the petitioner has represented, has to be taken into account. But it appears that even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner consistently pleaded that that has not been rectified. Before issuing such notice, the problem which the petitioner has represented, has to be taken into account. But it appears that even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner consistently pleaded that that has not been rectified. But on that ground, the petitioner cannot claim waiver of payment of the amount due to the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner is under obligation to make the payment as per the impugned notice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that due to certain difficulties he has to buy water from outside, for which, he is incurring expenses, and therefore, he is ready to pay the amount, but he may be permitted to pay half of the amount within a week and time may be granted to make payment of the rest of the amount in installments. 8. In the light of the above said position, as the amount mentioned in the notice demanding the property tax of Rs.24,024/- has to be obligated by the petitioner, the plea of the petitioner for making payment in the mode, as suggested by the learned counsel, has to be considered. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount demanded in the impugned notice dated 22.11.2013 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such payment, the respondent shall immediately effect water supply to the petitioner premies and also to rectify the problem, as represented by the petitioner. The petitioner shall make payment of the remaining amount in two installments within a period of four weeks thereafter.