Judgment 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Muthappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Dig Vijaypandian, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.28/0731/00 dated 03.03.2014 and 28/0731/00 dated 14.06.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant installment for the petitioner to pay the amount due. 4. The impugned order is the distraint notice issued to the petitioner for default of payment of sewerage tax and other charges, including sur charge. 5. In an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9298 of 2003, wherein a prayer was made to quash the demand, issued by the respondents to the tune of Rs.6,82,564/- as water supply and sewerage tax from the year 1990 and upto March, 2003. 6. This Court, after hearing both sides, had disposed of the said writ petition on 20.08.2010 by passing the following orders: “6. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay water tax, since the building does not enjoy water connection. This submission is devoid of merits for the reason that there cannot be any quid-pro-quo in respect of levy and collection of a tax. In the terms of Section 34 of the Act, the respondent Board has power to levy on premises situated within its area, water tax and sewerage tax and the water tax shall not be more than 35% of the property tax, and the sewerage tax shall not be more than 15% of the property tax. Therefore, the respondent Board are fully justified in demanding water and sewerage tax as well as surcharge for the belated payment. It is to be noted that surcharge is only an additional payment and has not been prohibited by any law and this collection is justified, since the tax and charges have not been paid within the time stipulated. 7. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Board has failed to issue any notice prior to disconnection of the sewerage supply. 7. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Board has failed to issue any notice prior to disconnection of the sewerage supply. Even according to the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that arrears slip have been issued. However, the counter does not state the dates on which such demands were served on the petitioner. As pointed out in terms of Regulation 24 prior to disconnection, the respondent Board shall issue a notice giving further grace time as decided by the competent authority. It appears that no such notice was issued to the petitioner before disconnection. In any event, pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court and after the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the interim direction, the sewerage connection has since been restored. However, it is pointed by the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Board that there are huge arrears payable by the petitioner towards water tax, sewerage tax, charges and surcharge. 8. Admittedly, the sewerage connection having been already restored, and taking note of the submission made by the respondent Board that there are huge arrears, ends of justice would be met, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish details as how the arrears has been calculated and an opportunity also be provided to the petitioner. However, one fact cannot be ignored is that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has not been paying any water tax or sewerage tax. Therefore, the petitioner has to be put on some reasonable terms for being entitled to such an opportunity. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2.25,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and twenty five thousand only) towards arrears of water tax, sewerage tax, charges and surcharge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such remittance being made by the petitioner, the respondents shall issue a fresh notice indicating the total amount payable by the petitioner towards water tax, sewerage tax, charges and surcharge giving details as regards the amounts so due and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his written objections. On such remittance being made by the petitioner, the respondents shall issue a fresh notice indicating the total amount payable by the petitioner towards water tax, sewerage tax, charges and surcharge giving details as regards the amounts so due and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his written objections. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and issue a demand to the petitioner. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner pursuant to interim direction issued by this Court and amount of Rs.2,25,000/- directed to be paid by in this order shall to be adjusted in the final demand. If the petitioner fails to remit the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- within the time stipulated above, the benefit of this order shall not enure to the petitioner and the respondents shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 7. It appears that pursuant thereto, the petitioner made payments, but thereafter committed default. It was only after the impugned proceedings were served on the petitioner, threat was meted out and notice was issued to the occupiers of the premises under Section 62(2) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, dated 08.08.2014, the petitioner rushed to this Court by the filing the present writ petition. 8. When the writ petition was listed for admission on 10.10.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire payment as raised by the respondents, including surcharge and pleaded for some time to effect payment. Therefore, this Court on the said date directed the petitioner to serve notice on the respondents as well as learned Standing counsel for CMWSSB. Accordingly, Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for CMWSSB accepted notice and the matter has been listed today for hearing. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the demand notice dated 13.10.2014, from which it is seen that from the first half year of 2014, the petitioner is in default and as on date, the total amount including surcharge payable is Rs.9,00,429/-. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the demand notice dated 13.10.2014, from which it is seen that from the first half year of 2014, the petitioner is in default and as on date, the total amount including surcharge payable is Rs.9,00,429/-. Since the dispute was raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stating that demand notice was not served to the petitioner, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to serve the original demand notice on the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same has been done, which is placed on record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient time may be given to the petitioner to clear the entire dues. 11. Admittedly, the property in question is the commercial property. After the earlier order was passed by this Court for the period from 1990 to March, 2003, the petitioner effected certain payments. Thereafter, she has defaulted in payment from 2004 onwards. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that granting easy installments would not raise, since it is established that the petitioner is at default. 12. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant time till January, 2015 and the entire dues shall be paid by the petitioner in due equal installments. The first of such installments shall be paid on or before 29.10.2014. If the petitioner fails to pay the 1stinstallment as directed and commits any default in respect of the subsequent installments, the benefit of this order shall not enure to the petitioner and the respondents are entitled to proceed in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the present payment is upto the 2nd half year of 2014 and therefore, the petitioner shall have to continue to pay from the 1st half year of 2015 onwards and citing this order, the petitioner cannot commit further default. 13. In the light of the above orders, the impugned proceedings shall not be given effect, since the petitioner has been granted time for effecting payment. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.