Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The CMWSSB in their counter affidavit filed originally justified the collection of infrastructure development charges. According to CMWSSB, the Board has spent considerable amount for providing infrastructural facilities required by the developers and as such the development charges were rightly levied. It was their further contention that multistoried and special buildings are the structures responsible for the discharge of sewerage at single point to public sewer system in huge quantity and are not in proportion to the capacity of designed sewers. At the same time, the demand for supply of water to such premises at single point has suddenly increased. The Board cannot anticipate any such development so as to provide the infrastructure facilities in advance leading to dead investments. Therefore, considering the total expenditure required for providing infrastructural facilities and to maintain the water supply and sewage system, the Act was amended authorising the Board to collect infrastructure development charges.

8. The Division Bench speaking through His Lordship Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam, (as His Lordship then was), opined that CMWSSB is charging the infrastructure development charges only for the service rendered and to strengthen and maintain the water supply and sewerage infrastructure and as such, the levy is fully justified. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.

9. The unsuccessful writ petitioners challenged the order before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1079 of 2009 etc. batch. The Supreme Court negatived the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding delegation of power and upheld the validity of Section 81(2)(jj) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, though for different reasons.

11. Subsequent to the remand, the CMWSSB and the State of Tamil Nadu filed separate counter affidavits justifying the imposition of infrastructure development charges. The Board as well as the State in their respective counter affidavits through facts and figures explained the total expenditure incurred towards improvement of the existing water supply and sewage system and to maintain the system. The details of percentage of collection of infrastructure development charges were also given. The State justified the levy by pointing out that less than 2.5% of the actual amount spent by the CMWSSB for providing these facilities alone were collected from the builders.

19. The following table appended to the counter affidavit gives the details of the amount spent by the Board and the amount collected by way of infrastructure development charges.

Sl.No. Year Annual expenditure incurred towards improvements to existing water supply and sewerage infrastructure facilities (Rs. in crores) Infrastructure development charges collected from the developers of Multistoried building and special building (Rs. in corres) Balance amount of expenditure incurred (less infrastructure Development Charges collected ) (Rs.in crores) Source of funds to meet out the balance incurred expendi-ture Percentage on collection of infrastruc-ture Development charges to incurred expenditure on schemes (in %) 1997-1998 142.09 0.21 141.88 World Bank, Commer-cial Banks, L.I.C., Hudco OECF. Govern-ment, TNUDF, JNNURM, etc. 0.15 1998-1999 257.17 3.38 253.79 1.32 1999-2000 278.08 2.92 275.16 1.06 2000-2001 258.57 5.14 253.43 1.99 2001-2002 154.25 4.29 149.96 2.79 2002-2003 126.11 8.21 117.9 6.52 2003-2004 703.53 8.97 694.56 1.28 2004-2005 445.4 7.27 438.13 1.64 2005-2006 154.08 5.92 148.16 3.85 2006-2007 136.29 6.08 130.21 4.47 2007-2008 156.71 6.61 150.1 4.22 2008-2009 173.61 8.62 164.99 4.97 2009-2010 118.53 9.9 108.63 8.36 Total 3104.42 77.52 3026.9 2.5