S THIAGARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER KARUR MUNICIPALITY KARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, made in A.S.No.46 of 1988, wherein the judgment of the trial Court, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff, was reversed, the plaintiff has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff sought for a declaratory relief and consequential permanent injunction with the following pleadings: The plaint Schedule mentioned house belonged to the plaintiff. On an application by the plaintiff before the first defendant, water connection was given to the plaintiff vide No.4941. The persons, who have got water connection with meter, should pay tax at Rs.8/- per month. But, the persons having meter, were paying the tax between Rs.8/- and Rs.90/-. At a particular time only, water was being supplied to these persons, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff was compelled to fix the meter. Accordingly, a meter wa s fixed by him. Since the water was being used for the household purposes, the municipality should collect the tax as per the tap rate system. Except the water connection as contemplated under Rule 3, the tax should be collected for the other connections, as per the tap rate system only. It was represented by the first defendant that the said Rule 3 was amended. But, the municipality has no power to amend the same. The persons having water connection with meter, can apply for tap system and get the connection after paying the necessary charges, as per Rule 8(C). The defendants have violated the provisions of Sec.132(A) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act. Since the water tax was paid in excess by the plaintiff, a notice was issued to the defendants. The first defendant sent a reply with false allegations. Thus, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for the above said reliefs.

(3.) The first defendant resisted the suit with the following pleadings: The meter system was introduced in the year 1977, and objections were called for from the public. But, there were no objections on the side of the public, and thus, the meter system was implemented with the Government's sanction. Since the plaintiff has given an application under Rule 3, the drinking water was supplied to him under meter system. Rules 2 and 8(C) are not applicable to the plaintiff. There was no violation of the Rules, as alleged by the plaintiff, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.