Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1406 (TS)

Jeetendra Agarwal v. PRLL. Secy. , Mun. Admn.

2025-11-06

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.5 in not converting the water connection of the petitioner vide CAN No.024316798, from commercial to domestic, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri R.Gopi Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Veeresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for HMWS & SB. Perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a Physiotherapist and running a Physiotherapy clinic in the ground floor of the building under the name and style of ‘Ramakrishna Physiotherapy Clinic’, wherein only exercise based therapy and activities are being carried out for out-patients and there is no in-patient facility and first floor is being used as residence of the petitioner; that petitioner has domestic water connection vide CAN No.024316798 with a width of 15 mm, which stands in the name of vendor of the petitioner and the water is being used only for residential purpose of first floor; that there is a bore water facility in the premises; that till March, 2016, the bills were issued under domestic category, however, in the month of 2016, the same has been converted to commercial connection without any notice to the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner is not using water for any clinical purposes except for domestic and household purposes in the first floor, therefore, change of category from domestic to commercial is illegal and unsustainable. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.04.2016 to respondent No.2 to rectify the category of the bill and convert the connection from commercial category to domestic category, however, the same was not considered; that petitioner submitted a letter dated 23.05.2016 to respondent No.4 and sought information and vide letter dated 16.06.2016, respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that change of category from domestic to commercial has been done as per the guidelines issued by the Board of Directors Committee, as per the Rules laid down in H.M.W.S & S.B Act, 1989 and annexed a copy of the report of the committee. He further submitted that even as per the committee report, clinic is not a commercial activity. He further submitted that even as per the committee report, clinic is not a commercial activity. He further submitted that petitioner approached the respondents time and again and in spite of repeated requests, respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.03.2017, without referring to the grounds raised by the petitioner and also the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Devendra M. Surati Vs. State of Gujarat , [ AIR 1969 SC 63 ]. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 by referring to the counter filed by respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that petitioner is running a Physiotherapy clinic, which is commercial in nature, since the services are offered by charging fee, therefore, the same is a commercial activity. He further submitted that respondents’ Board has constituted a committee vide proceedings No.MD/HMWSSB/2015-16/372, dated 04.03.2016, to give clarity on activities which are domestic in nature and activities which are commercial in nature and the committee defined the family dwelling premises with non-domestic activity as domestic category and the premises used for non-domestic activity except petty shops where the plinth area is less than 20 Sq.mts, for example Kirana, Fancy, Ration, Medical, Stationary, Vegetable & Fruit Stall, Pan Shop, Electrical or Electronic repair shop, Scrap collecting shop, Hair cutting, Milk booth, small mutton/chicken shop, tailoring and embroidery shop, etc., as non-domestic category. He further submitted that vide circular Memo dated 09.10.2017, threshold plinth area of 20 Sq.mts was revised to 50 Sq.mts and if the premises exceeds 50 Sq.mts, the same would be categorized as commercial category from October, 2017. He further submitted that as per the Water Supply Rules, 1990, Rule 18(2) where a constructional, commercial or industrial activity is carried out in any premises after obtaining a service connection for use of water under Domestic tariff, then the owner of occupier of the premises shall forthwith intimate the Board in writing regarding the change and get the private connection classified under the appropriate tariff. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 would further submit that as per Section 24 of HMWS & SB Act, 1989, the supply of water for domestic purpose should not include supply for certain specific purposes like trade or business, etc. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 would further submit that as per Section 24 of HMWS & SB Act, 1989, the supply of water for domestic purpose should not include supply for certain specific purposes like trade or business, etc. He further submitted that the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Devendra M.Surati (supra), referred to by the petitioner have no application to the present case. He also submitted that plinth area of the petitioner’s property is about 58 Sq.mts, which is more than the prescribed limit of 50 Sq.mts, therefore, the subject premises cannot be categorized as domestic category and finally prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Admittedly, there is no dispute that petitioner is running a Physiotherapy Clinic in the ground floor of a residential building and the conversion of water connection of the petitioner from domestic category to commercial category by the respondents. The principle contention of the respondents is that petitioner has been running Physiotherapy clinic and offering services by charging fee and the same has to be considered as non-domestic activity and as per the guidelines issued by the Board of Directors Committee, any premises having plinth area of more than 20 Sq.mts, used for non- domestic activity, shall be treated as commercial category. Subsequently, the threshold limit of 20 Sq.mts has been enhanced to 50 Sq.mts by the Board vide circular memo dated 09.10.2017. Respondents claimed that as per the inspection report dated 19.09.2017, the commercial plinth area of the petitioner’s building is 58 Sq.mts, which is more than the prescribed limit of 50 Sq.mts and thus, the same can be treated commercial category. However, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that petitioner was running Physiotherapy Clinic, which does not require usage of water and cannot be considered as commercial usage. In support of his contention, petitioner placed on record, a copy of the customer ledger with regard to usage of quantity of water by the petitioner for the period 01.05.2009 to 02.09.2025, as per which, the water being used by the petitioner is about 15 Kltrs per month. 8. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 raised the bill up to March, 2016 under domestic category, however, from April, 2016, category has been changed to commercial and further, respondents changed the category without any notice to petitioner. 8. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 raised the bill up to March, 2016 under domestic category, however, from April, 2016, category has been changed to commercial and further, respondents changed the category without any notice to petitioner. From the customer ledger submitted by the petitioner, it is evident that bill up to March, 2016 was raised treating the petitioner’s connection as domestic, and from the April, 2016, the same has been changed to commercial category and no material is placed on record by the respondents Board that whether any notice has been given to the petitioner or any proceedings issued prior to conversion of category of the petitioner from domestic to commercial. 9. It is relevant to note that the consumption of water by the petitioner is constantly 15 Kltrs from May, 2009 to September, 2025, except few months, where the usage of water was about 16 Kltrs. From the above, it can be noticed that petitioner is consuming only 15 Kltrs per month constantly from 2009 to 2025 and there is no material on record to suggest that in view of operation of Physiotherapy Clinic, the consumption of water has been increased. Further, no notice has been issued to the petitioner before converting the water connection from domestic to commercial and no reasons have been assigned for such conversion of category, except referring to the guidelines issued by the Board of Directors Committee. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the conversion of category of petitioner from domestic to commercial is unsustainable, since the principles of natural justice has not been followed and thus, the water connection of the petitioner vide CAN No.024316798 has to be treated as domestic. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to convert the water connection of the petitioner vide CAN No.024316798, from commercial to domestic, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. However, this Order will not preclude the respondents’ Board from taking appropriate steps, in case, the consumption of water by the petitioner falls under commercial category/limit, by duly giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.