JUDGMENT
K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. At the stage of admission, the respondent Municipality was notified and, accordingly, it is represented through a learned Counsel. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16260 of 1994. The petitioner Pudukkottai Municipality Tax Payers’ Sangam has sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. Na.Ka E2/ 8240/94 dated 19.7.1994, published in ‘Daily Thanthi’ newspaper dated 21.7.1994. According to the terms of the said notification, a resident of Pudukkottai, who wants to have water supply connection, shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 if the connection is for domestic purpose Rs. 4,000 if the connection is for factory purpose and Rs. 6,000 if the connection is for commercial complex. The contention of the petitioner is that per Section 32-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), unless the bye-laws are framed, prescribing the amount of security deposit to be made by the consumers of water, the Municipality is not entitled to demand security deposit, that as no such bye-law has been framed, it is not open to the Pudukkottai Municipality to demand security deposit from the consumers. It is not disputed before us that the bye-laws framed by the Pudukkottai Municipality do not provide for making security deposit for giving water supply connection. Of course, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality, that the bye-laws are proposed to be amended and, according to the proposed amendment, the aforesaid security deposits for various categories of consumers are fixed for giving water-supply connection. But those bye-laws, which have been submitted to the State Government, have not yet been approved; as such, the same have not come into force. It is submitted that though the bye-laws would come into force as and when the State Government approves them and are published them in the Gazette, the security deposit is demanded during the interregnum.
3. Sub-section (1), Section l32-A of the Act specifically provides that “for all water supplied under Section 131 or under Section 132, payment shall be made on such basis, at such times, and on such conditions as may be laid down in the by-laws made by the council and shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property-tax. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) further provides that the bye-laws may “in cases of supply for domestic consumption and use, lay down the maximum free allowance to be made and the rates of charge to be levied in respect of water supplied in excess of such allowance. Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) further provides that the bye-laws may “in cases of supply whether for domestic consumption and use or for other purposes, or any class of such cases, lay down that the charge for water supplied shall be based on the number of the taps allowed, irrespective of the quantity of water consumed.
4. Though the provisions contained in Section 132-A of the Act do not specifically mention about the security deposit, as the Municipal Council has to ensure payment of the water bills promptly according to the water consumed, we have no doubt that such a power vests in the Municipal Council under Section 132-A of the Act to demand security deposit, but such power cannot be exercised unless bye-laws are framed. Section 131 or Section 132, which are referred to in Section 132-A of the Act, relate to private water-supply for consumption and domestic use and powers of executive authority to enforce provision of water-supply and power of executive authority to supply water for non-domestic purposes respectively. Section 306 of the Act relates to power of Council to make bye-laws on the subjects mentioned therein. Section 310(1) of the Act provides that “no bye-laws or cancellation or alteration of a bye-law shall have effect until the same shall have been approved and confirmed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that “any bye-law or cancellation or alteration of a bye-law when it shall have been duly confirmed shall be published in the district gazette in English and shall come into operation three months after it has been so published.” Therefore, it is clear, that even though amendment to the existing bye-laws may be in process, but the amended bye-law cannot become operative until the same is confirmed by the State Government and published in the District Gazette in English and three months’ time expires after it has been so published. Thus, as on today, there is no by-law operating, which empowers the Pudukkottai Municipality to insist for making security deposit.
5. It is further pointed out by learned Counsel for Municipality, that the Notification dated 19.7.1994, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner, also does not insist that residents of Pudukkottai Municipality seeking water supply connection must make a security deposit. It only states that those who want to have the water supply connection pending approval of the amended bye-laws and publication of the same in the gazette, may make an application for water supply connection with the amount of security deposit as stated in the Notification. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the residents of the Municipality. It is not possible to appreciate this contention as it is not in dispute that application for water-supply connection will not be entertained by the Municipality unless the same is accompanied by the necessary security deposit. Water is a necessity. Therefore, one must necessarily seek for water supply connection. In a city or a town cannot live without a proper water supply. Therefore, it is preposterous to aspect a resident within the Municipal limits to postpone to have, or not to seek for, water supply connection until the bye-laws come into operation. In other words, it is nothing but compelling them to make security deposits and seek water supply connection. Such an act on the part of the Municipality is without the authority of law as the bye-laws as on today do not provide for it. Therefore, without the proposed amendment to the bye-law becoming operative the insistence of the Municipality to make security deposit cannot be approved as valid and lawful.
6. We are of the view that once the amended bye-law comes into operation residents of Pudukkottai who have obtained the water-supply connection from the Municipality would be liable to make the security deposit as prescribed in the amended bye-law whether such connection has been given prior to the coming into operation of the bye-laws. As such the Municipality would not be put to any loss by giving water supply connection pending the confirmation of the proposed amendment to the bye-laws without insisting for security deposit as it is open to it to have such security deposit made by every consumer of water supplied by the Municipality after the amended bye-law becomes operative irrespective whether the water supply connection was given earlier to coming into force of the amended bye-law.
7. Learned single Judge, however, has taken a view that the Municipality has undertaken the water-supply scheme with the assistance of the World Bank and it has to pay interest on the amount borrowed and also that the funds are required to implement the scheme. Since amendment to the bye-laws is under process the Municipality cannot be held to have acted without the authority of law in insisting for security deposit. In the light of the provisions contained in Section 132-A and Section 310(1) and (2) of the Act, we find it difficult to agree with the view of the learned single Judge.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal (W.A. No. 1208 of 1994) is allowed. The order date 15.9.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16260 of 1994 is set aside. The Writ Petition No. 16260 of 1994 is allowed in the following terms: The Notification issued by the Pudukkottai Municipality bearing No. Na.Ka.E2/8240/94 dated 19.7.1994, published, in ‘Daily Thanthi’ newspaper, dated 21.7.1994 in so far as it requires the residents of Pudukkottai Municipality to the security deposit for seeking water-supply connection from the Municipality is quashed. It is, however, made clear that once the amended bye-laws are confirmed by the State Government and that same are published in the District Gazette, and come into operation, all those who have obtained water-supply connection from the Municipality would be liable to make the security deposit as prescribed in the amended bye-laws, irrespective of the fact that such connections have been given earlier to the coming into operation of the amended bye-laws. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
