MERLIN DEVELOPERS Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A multi -storied building was constructed by the writ petitioners at premises no. 15, Kabithirtha Sarani, Borough IX, Kolkata. Initially a temporary sanction and drainage connection being No. 530/2007 -08 dated 17th August 2007 was given to the petitioner when the construction was on, as their labour and manpower were staying there.

(2.) Subsequently the petitioner by its letter dated 9th June 2009 (Annexure P. 8) requested the Municipal authorities to give the External sanction and permanent connection for their In -house drainage. In reply the authorities demanded advance deposit of an amount of Rs. 18,83,300/ - (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Three Hundred only) towards the cost of "road restoration, supervision fees, notification charges and road opening charge for the proposed rider sewer" as according to the Corporation, the necessary laying of sewer would have to be done from the petitioner's end as per the internal sanction plan.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged such demand raised by the Corporation and has contended that in effect this is a demand towards "drain development charges", which have been held to be illegal and unenforceable by various Benches of this Court in the absence of the existence of any regulatory mechanism under section 289(3) read with section 307 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that earlier a writ petition (WP No. 2072 of 2004) had been filed in respect of the same premises and building plan, in which an amount of Rs. 23,92,643/ - on account of drain development fees was demanded from the land owners by the Corporation. By its order dated 7th December 2004 a Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 2072 of 2004 had permitted the petitioners to pay the composite money demanded by the authorities, but after excluding the sum specified on account of "drain development fees". The contention of the writ petitioners before this Court is that the demand now raised by the KMC authorities is again essentially towards the same "drain development fees" but under differently invented headings and nomenclature.