SARVPRABHUDAYAL HIMMATSINGKA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate General, Haryana, states that after filing of the writ petition in view of the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the State Government has taken a decision to omit bye-laws 81 and 82 in the Haryana Municipal Drainage and Sanitation Bye-laws, 1977, under which service charges have been imposed in regard to sanitary installations of drainage and also monthly charges for the sanitary installations in the existing or new buildings.

(2.) The challenge made in this writ petition is to the validity of bye-laws 81, 82 and 83 of the Haryana Municipal Drainage and Sanitation Bye-laws, 1977. These bye-laws have been omitted by the State Government vide its notification No. G.S.R.34/ H.A.24/73/S.200 and 214/84 dated 27th April, 1984. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Section 70 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 authorises a Municipal Committee to impose a fee with regard to drainage, but the Committee has not exercised this power under Section 70 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that bye-laws 81 and 82 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 70 of the Act on a Municipal Committee. Section 75 is also not attracted in this case as it only confers power on the State Government to require a committee to impose any tax mentioned in Section 70 of the Act. Sub-Section (3) of Section 75 of the Act empowers the State Govt. to impose any tax if the Committee does not carry out any order passed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 75 of the Act. There-fore, by laws 81 and 82 also will not come under Section 75 of the Act. Bye laws have been framed under Section 200 clause (n) of the Act. Section 200 empowers the State Government to make bye-laws. Clause (n) of Section 200 authorises the State Government to make bye-laws to regulate the making and use of connections or communications between the private houses and premises and mains or service cables, wires, pipes, drains, sewers and other channels established and maintained by the Committee under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Learned Advocate General, Haryana, concedes that clause (n) of Section 200 of the Act does .not empower the State Government to charge any fee for the drainage connection or installation of sanitary works. In view of this concession, I am not going into the question whether the word 'regulate' empowers the State Govt. to fix the fee or charge any amount for providing the drainage service or sewerage service to the occupant of a building in any municipal area. I am leaving that question open in view of the concession given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana in the instant case.