M VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDIAR Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed. In that writ petition, it was complained that the action of disconnection of the water supply, taken by the respondent-Board by order dated 5-11-1999 was illegal and bad.

(2.) Admitted facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises at No. 16, Rameswaram Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17. He had the water connection from the respondent-Board. By the impugned order he was informed that during surprise inspection at his premises on 5-11-1999, it was found that he had directly connected electric motor with metrowater service line, indicating direct suction of metrowater which was illegal. It was on that ground, the water line was disconnected straightway. That was challenged in the writ petition. It was the contention of the appellant/petitioner that this was done under Regulation 45 of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 and that Regulation 45 was ultra vires the Act. The learned Single Judge has found firstly that the said Regulation 45 was not ultra vires the Act. It was also contended that the Regulation 45 which was based under S. 81(2)(k) of the Act requires the prior sanction of the Government. The learned Judge found that that was also not necessary. The learned Judge has found the action of the respondent-Board to be in order. In paragraph 7 of his order, the learned single Judge observed that if the disconnection was made illegally, it was always open to the appellant/petitioner to approach the respondent-Board by way of a representation regarding his stand with respect to the illegality, and if the appellant/petitioner was able to prove his case, then the respondent-Board would be duty bound to restore the water Supply without insisting on the other conditions mentioned in the said Regulation. It was also pointed out to the learned single Judge that a notice was already issued on 15-11-1999 and the respondent-Board was directed to consider the said notice-cum-represenstation given on behalf of the appellant/petitioner on merits and pass orders within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. Very strangely enough, though this relief was given, the appellant/petitioner has come up in an appeal contending that Regulation 45 under which the respondent-Board purportedly acted, was ultra vires the Act.

(3.) Before going to that question as to whether Regulation 45 is ultra vires the Act and before considering as to whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that Regulation to be in order, we would rather consider some other provisions of the Act. Under S. 45 of the Act, the water connections for domestic consumption and use are provided. The power to cut off the water supply is provided by S. 49 of the Act. It is interesting to see S. 49(d) and S. 49(j). S. 49 starts with non-obstante clause and suggests that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the authorised authority may cut off the connection between any water works of the Board and any premises to which water is supplied from such works or may turn off such supply in any of the following cases. Sub-section (d) provides as under :