JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, A.C.J.

1. The petitioners in W.P. M.P. No. 28239 of 1997 in W.P. No. 24224 of 1997, are the appellants in this Writ Appeal which is directed against the interlocutory order dated 28-10-1997 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.

2. The appellants applied to the first respondent/Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, represented by its Special Officer, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, for sanction of the plan for the proposed construction of a multi- storeyed building by giving notice under Section 438 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (Act No. II of 1956) (for short 'Act 1955') on 18-6-1997. The second respondent-Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, by letter No. 151 / TP3/CCP No. 2124 dated 17-9-1997 requested the appellants to remit a sum of Rs. 1,20,419-00 under various heads. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of the said amount in these proceedings. It is further stated in that letter that the appellants shall submit an undertaking on Rs. 20-00 non-judicial stamp paper separately in respect of six items, of which, item No. 6 is in dispute. Item No. 6 is as follows:

"Submission of a copy of receipt for Rs. 4.35 lakhs remitted in the HMWS & S13, Hyderabad towards the water supply & sewerage connection/ improvement charges."

3. Challenging the correctness of the requirement to submit receipt, as noted above, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 24224 of 1997. In the interlocutory application the appellants prayed for a direction to the respondents to provisionally sanction the plan on their application already made on 18-6-1997 without reference to the said condition under item No. 6.

4. The learned Single Judge, while issuing notice, passed the following interim order:

"Order: "Respondents-MCH, shall now consider the application of the petitioners on condition of the petitioners depositing the amount as demanded through the impugned proceedings. The deposit of the amount shall, however, be subject to further directions to be passed in the Writ Petition, inasmuch as the petitioners questioned the very jurisdiction of the Corporation to collect the said amount. It is made clear that the respondent-Corporation shall have to refund the deposit to be so made by the petitioners, in case of the writ petition being allowed holding that the respondents-Corporation has no jurisdiction to collect the amount. There shall be an order accordingly."

It is the correctness of that order that is assailed in this Writ Appeal.

5. Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the Municipal Corporation has no authority whatsoever to collect the amounts towards water and sewerage charges. He submits that if the respondents have no power to collect the amounts they ought not to have called upon the appellants to pay the amount with the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'the Board') and produce receipt. He has invited our attention to Sections 17 and 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 (Act 15 of 1989) and submits that as those provisions have overriding effect, the prayer of the appellants ought to have been granted by the learned single judge.

6. Mr. Ganta Rama Rao, the learned standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, submits that under Section 112 (3-a), 388 (d), 429 (1) (b) and 444 (a) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 the respondents are under statutory obligation to ensure that sufficient provision is made for the purpose of providing water supply and sewerage. He states that the application of the appellants was forwarded to the competent authority, under Act 15 of 1989, who estimated the amount at Rs. 4.35 lakhs as the probable expenditure for supply of water and sewerage and that the respondents are discharging their statutory obligation in calling upon the appellants to submit receipt under item No. 6.

7. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the order of the learned single Judge is sustainable in law?

8. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract Sections 17 and 22 of Act 15 of 1989 which are as follows:

"17. Vesting of works on Board:-

On and from the date of coming into force of this Chapter (Chapter-TV), all public reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells and bore-wells, pumps, pipes, taps, conduits, and other works connected with the supply of water to the Hyderabad Metropolitan area, including the head-works, reservoirs and the raising mains, and all bridges, buildings, machinery, work materials and other things connected therewith and all land (not being private property) adjacent and appertaining to the same, vest in the Board and be subject to its control.

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

22. Payment to be made for water supplied:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any law, contract or other instrument, for all water supplied under this Act, payment shall be made at such rates, at such times and under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations, and different rates may be prescribed for supply of water for different purposes and for different quantities."

9. A perusal of the provisions of Section 17 of Act 15 of 1989, extracted above, shows that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, viz., on or from 5th July, 1989 all public reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells etc., connected with the supply of water to Hyderabad Metropolitan area includes the head works, reservoirs etc., and all land (not being private property) adjacent and appurtenant to the same, shall vest in the Board constituted under Act 15 of 1989 and will be subject to its control. Section 22 of the Act 1989 which commences with non-obstante clause, directs that notwithstanding anything contained in Act 15 of 1989 or any law, contract or other instrument for all water supplied under the Act payment shall be made at such rates, at such times and under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations; there is power to prescribe different rates for supply of water for different purposes and for different quantities. There can be no doubt that Section 22 is given overriding effect over the provisions of Act 15 of 1989 or any other law {including the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955), but that is only for the purpose of collecting the charges for supply of water by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board under the Act as the responsibility of supply of drinking water is the obligation of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. This provision, in our view, prima facie, cannot be so construed as to hold that the respondents have no power to satisfy themselves regarding making necessary provisions for supply of water and sewerage connections etc., to cater to the needs of the occupants of any multi-storeyed building, in exercise of power under Sections 112 (3-a), 388 (d), sub-sections (1) (b) and (1) (d) of Section 429 of the Hyderabad Municipalities Act (sic. Municipal Corporations). By the impugned letter of September 19, 1997 the second respondent did not call upon the appellants to remit or deposit the amount towards supply of water or drainage and sewerage in the office of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad but requested them to produce receipt of payment of the amount estimated as payable by the concerned authority under Act 15 of 1989 to satisfy that adequate provision has been made for supply of water and sewerage connections. We have no hesitation in holding that the respondents have such a power under the said provisions of the Hyderabad Municpal Corporations Act for purposes of according sanction of the proposed construction.

10. If the appellants have six existing water connections, as submitted, it is for them to approach the concerned authority under Act 15 of 1989 and obtain certificate that necessary provision for supply of water, sewerage and drainage connection has been made, which can be produced in lieu of receipt for Rs. 4.38 lakhs in item (6) of the impugned letter.

11. In this view of the matter the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal for consideration of the application of the appellants, on merits, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. We, therefore, find no merit in the Writ Appeal. Subject to the above observation the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

12. The learned single Judge has directed to list the Writ Petition on 10 22-12-1997. The office shall post the Writ Petition accordingly.