NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. DELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is a resident of house No.47, Karkadooma, Delhi. His father Shri Girwar Singh was sanctioned water connection in the year 1987 by Delhi Jal Board previously known as Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking. The water charges were paid at the rates applicable to the domestic category as raised from time to time. The last bill for water charges applicable to domestic category was raised for Rs.880.35 for the period 8.11.1990 to 20.3.1992. This was paid on 23.3.1992 (photostat copy enclosed ). The water bill charges were calculated @ 7.50 per month. Thereafter, a water bill for Rs.5,163/- for the period 24.12.1993 to 24.3.1994 was received which was inclusive of arrears of Rs.4,459/-. The complainant took the matter with the Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking but no action was taken on the oral complaint. Rather another bill for Rs.8,070/- inclusive of arrears of Rs.7,120/- payable on 30.12.1995 was received. When several letters addressed to the authority invoked no response from it, a complaint was moved before the Commission against the unjustified cost imposed on the complainant through issue of water charges bills at higher rates.

(2.) On receipt of the complaint, the Commission directed the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DGI and R in brief) to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The DG (Iandr) in its report recommended the issuance of Notice of Enquiry on the ground that the respondent authority have adopted and indulged in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Sec.2 (o) (ii) of the Act. After being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the respondent authority, the Commission issued a Notice of Enquiry to the respondent. In its reply, the respondent refuted the allegations levelled against it. The contested bills are stated to have been issued on the basis of the inspection of the complainant premises where business activity was found to be carried at the relevant period of time. The complainant was also informed of the reasons for charging rates applicable to commercial category. It has been contended that the subsequent re-conversion of commercial category to domestic category again on inspection of premises proves the bonafide of the respondent. Being a public authority, for false allegations levelled against it heavy cost needs to be imposed on the complainant, contended the respondent. On completion of proceedings, the following issues were framed : (1) Is the respondent guilty of adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices as alleged in the complaint application (2) If answer to the aforesaid issue is in the affirmative, are such restrictive trade practices not prejudicial to public interest (3) What final order is required to be passed in this case both the parties relied on their respective affidavits supported with the documents. No oral evidence was led by both the parties.

(3.) Dr. V. K. Aggarwal appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently asserted the allegation against the respondent and Ms. Zeba Zafri strongly supported the stand of the respondent. Rival submissions made on both sides have been carefully considered and the documents perused. Admittedly, the domestic connection once sanctioned was converted into commercial connection on the alleged ground of inspection report of the Area Meter Inspector. No such inspection report has been enclosed either with the reply to the Notice of Enquiry or with the counter affidavit. The complainant on its part has enclosed letters from various persons including Municipal Councilor, President, Village Karkardooma Samaj Sudhar Samiti stating that the complainant had not carried any commercial activity in the premises since 1985 or 1990. These have remained uncontroverted. In absence of inspection report of the concerned officials, Meter reading chart of water used or any other document supporting the user of the premises for commercial activity, the burden on the respondent has not been discharged. Pertinent to note in this connection is the reconversion of the category from commercial to domestic on 31.12.1996 which is after the date the complaint was filed before the Commission. The least that is expected of public authority is to disclose the reasons for charging the party at higher rates. All that has been done in this case is to issue a notice to the complainant which is denied to have been received by him. Instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant, his water connection also stood disconnected in December, 1999. As this was not sufficient a notice of Rs.20,572/- has been sent to the respondent in the month of February, 2000.