Punjab-Haryana High Court
Residents Welfare Association (Regd) vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 16 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR617
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Residents Welfare Association (Registered body) Urban Estate No. 2, Hisar in this petition has prayed for quashing of the impugned order Annexure P 1 whereby Haryana Development Authority (for short referred to as 'HUDA') has revised the water and sewerage charges in Urban Estate No. 2 Hisar.
2. Petitioner-Association is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 (as amended by Punjab Amendment Act (1957). Huda developed a residential colony in Hisar known as Urban Estate No. 2. Members of the petitioner-Association are the plot holders in the said residential colony and have constructed their houses. Plots were allotted to the members of the petitioner-Association during the years 1973-1979. Till February 1988, HUDA had been charging water and sewerage charges as per the following rates:-
"(i) Water Charges : 0.30/0.50 per k1
(ii) Sewerage charges.
(a) per W.C. = Rs. 2/- per month.
(b) per urinal = Rs. 1/- per month."
3. HUDA in its meeting held on 11.9.1987 enhanced the water and sewerage charges and doubled the rates from the previous rates. A formal order was passed on 3.2.1988 but the same was made effective w.e.f. 11.9.1987 i.e. from the date when the decision of enhancing water and sewerage charges was taken in the meeting.
4. Petitioner-Association has challenged the revision of the rates vide Annexure P1 on the ground that the same has been done in an arbitrary manner ignoring the well settled principles of law and natural justice; that the rates could not be revised retrospectively and it was incumbent upon the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties before revising the rates; that there were no reasons whatsoever for making 100% enhancement in the rates of water and sewerage charges. Another ground taken is that there is no provision which empowers the respondents to make enhancement in water and sewerage charges.
5. In the written statement, stand taken by the respondents is that the rates have been enforced with effect from the date the decision was taken in the meeting held on 1.9.1987 although formal order was conveyed in February 1983 and under these circumstances it cannot be held that the rates have been enforced retrospectively. The rates of water and sewerage charges have been increased keeping in view the expenditure and revenue involved in the water supply scheme. From 1980-81 to 1987-88, HUDA suffered huge losses in providing water and sewerage facilities. The revenue receipt was much less than the expenditure incurred by HUDA; that there is a statutory authority vested in HUDA to increase the rates of water and sewerage from time to time.
6. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. Finance Committee, HUDA in its meeting held on 11.9.1987 under the Chairmanship of Minister Town and Country Planning revised the rates of water and sewerage. Although the formal order was drawn up at a later date but the same has been made effective with effect from the date of the meeting. Under these circumstances, it is held that they have not been made effective retrospectively.
8. HUDA has justified the increase in the revised rates by showing that the revenue receipt was much less then the expenditure incurred by the authorities for providing water and sewerage facilities. The details of expenditure and revenue as given in the written statement by the HUDA are as under:-
"Year Expenditure (in Rs.) Revenue (in Rs.)
1980-81 47,838.30 20,777.88
1981-82 2,64,993.55 1,08,850.57
1982-83 3,85,861.11 1,32,164.23
1983-84 5,34,695.02 2,76,474.93
1984-85 8,49,559.45 3,91,111.68
1985-86 10,64,138.50 2,85,207.49
1986-87 10,28,713.80 4,86,395.69
1987-88 11,46,171.40 4,53,459.54
53,21,971.40 21,54,442.00"
9. From the perusal of the above statement of expenditure and revenue, it is clear that HUDA was suffering losses for the last 7-8 years. Practically, every year the revenue was 50% of the expenditure incurred by HUDA. 100% increase in the rates, under the circumstances, is justified.
10. As per clause 9 of the conditions of allotment, the supply of water and facility of sewerage was to be metered one and the rates were to be charged as fixed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA from time to time, which were binding upon the owners of the houses/land Chief Administrator, HUDA, keeping in view the expenditure incurred, increased the rates of water and sewerage because of the power vested in him under clause-9 of the conditions of letter of allotment. It is, therefore, held that HUDA was authorised to increase the rates.
11. No opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner before revising the rates of water and sewerage charges. It was an administrative order and compliance of principles of natural justice vary under different situations and conditions. Moreover, respondents have justified the revision of rates by showing to this Court that the revenue collected was less than the expenditure incurred in respect of water and sewerage facilities in respect of Urban Estate-2, Hisar.
12. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.