Federation Of Cooperative Group ... vs Dda & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4430 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 12th September, 2011.

+              W.P.(C) 7402/2005 & CM No.5292/2005 (for stay)

%      FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING
       SOCIETIES-DWARAKA LTD.                    ...Petitioners
                   Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.

                                     Versus

       DDA & ORS.                                           ..... Respondents
                          Through:      Mrs. Renuka Arora & Mr. Kunal
                                        Kohli, Advocates for R-1 DDA.
                                        Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna with Mr.
                                        Jitendra Kumar, Advocates for R-2
                                        DJB.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, a Federation of Cooperative Group Housing Societies

located in Dwaraka, has filed this petition seeking mandamus to the

respondent no.2 Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to take over the distribution and

billing of the supply of water to the flats for the various cooperative group

housing societies in Dwaraka and impugning the rates at which the

respondent no.1 DDA has been charging the said flats for supply of water;

direction is also sought for billing of the said flats for the supply of water at

par with the supply in rest of the city of Delhi.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 29 th April, 2005

which continues to be in force, status quo with regard to the supply of water

on the terms and conditions on which the same was being supplied was

directed to be maintained. Counter affidavits have been filed by the

respondents DDA and DJB. From time to time respondents DDA and DJB

were directed to file further affidavits/status reports which have been filed.

The counsels have been heard.

3. As far as the claim of the petitioner for the supply and distribution of

water in Dwaraka to be taken over by the respondent DJB is concerned, the

stand of the respondent DDA is that it has no objection thereto. It is

however the respondent DJB which has stated that it is not at present willing

to take charge of the same. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent

DJB that DJB/its predecessor had as far back as in the year 1992-94 warned

that the required quantity of water could not be supplied due to severe

constraint of raw water; photocopies of letters dated 18th March, 1992 and

18th March, 1994 have been handed over in this regard. The counsel for the

respondent DJB further states, that the work on Water Treatment Plant,

Dwaraka, Delhi to be fed from Munak canal Haryana is underway and is

likely to be completed not before March, 2012; that the work of construction

by DDA of Command Tanks (CT)-5 & 6 serving Dwaraka is underway and

only after the same is completed can the supply be tested. The counsel for

the respondent DJB has stated that DJB is not willing to take over the work

of distribution of water in the colony of Dwaraka till all the aforesaid works

are completed. Respondent DJB in its counter affidavit has also referred to

W.P.(C) No.10467/2004 also preferred by the petitioner complaining of

insufficient supply of water in the colony of Dwaraka and in which direction

was issued for them to mutually resolve the issue of inadequate supply of

water in the said colony. It is contended that respondent DJB in the said writ

petition also had expressed difficulty in taking over distribution of water in

the colony. It is stated that unless sufficient supply is available for

distribution and which at present is not, respondent DJB is unwilling to take

over the same. It is further stated that it is not as if the respondent DJB is

supplying water in the entire city of Delhi. It is stated that the respondent

DJB is making bulk supply besides to DDA also to NDMC and MES areas

and does not take over the distribution in the development stage in which the

colony of Dwaraka is at present. Respondent DJB had stated that it is, as per

availability, making bulk supply to DDA for distribution in the colony of

Dwarka.

4. The counsel for the petitioner inspite of repeated queries as to what is

the right of the petitioner in enforcement of which mandamus is sought for

respondent DJB to take over the supply and distribution of water in Dwarka,

is unable to show so. Without the petitioner disclosing before this Court the

basis of its claim for the mandamus sought, it cannot be held entitled to the

relief.

5. As far as the challenge to the rates is concerned, the contention of the

counsel for the petitioner is that the rate being charged by respondent DDA

in the colony of Dwaraka is much higher than the rate being charged by the

respondent DJB in the colonies of Delhi where DJB is distributing water. It

is contended that DDA cannot charge more from the residents of Dwaraka.

6. The stand of the respondent DDA in this regard is that DDA is not

profiteering in any manner from the distribution of water; it is charging on

the basis of the rates at which respondent DJB is making bulk supply to

DDA plus the costs incurred by DDA in distribution/boosting of water to the

various Cooperative Group Housing Societies.

7. The counsel for the respondent DJB has also stated that the rate at

which DJB makes bulk supply at the entry point in a colony are different

from the rate which it charges from the actual consumers inasmuch as the

rate chargeable to the actual consumer is also dependant upon the cost of

distribution. It is further stated that with effect from 7 th December, 2009,

while the rate for bulk supply is at the rate of `6.30 paise per k. litre, the rate

chargeable to the direct domestic consumer is of `2 per kilo litre for

consumption upto 10 kilo litres per month, `3 per kilo litre for consumption

between 10 and 20 kilo litres per month, `15 per kilo litre for consumption

between 20 and 30 kilo litres per month and `25 per kilo litre for

consumption beyond 30 kilo litres per month.

8. On enquiry it is further informed by the counsel for the respondent

DJB that there is no parity in the rates charged by the other bulk consumers

namely NDMC and MES from their respective consumers.

9. It has again been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

under which provision of law/rule the water tariff is to be fixed and what is

the right of the petitioner to claim supply of water at the same rates as being

charged by respondent DJB or NDMC or MES from their respective

consumers. Again no answer has been forthcoming.

10. Without the same, the petitioner cannot be heard to challenge the price

of water charged by the respondent DDA.

11. I may also notice that there is no challenge to the claim of the

respondent DDA of charging on the basis of the rates being paid by it plus

costs on distribution. The counsel for the respondent DDA has during the

hearing further informed that since the supply from respondent DJB is

admittedly in-sufficient to meet the entire requirement, DDA is also

resorting to boosting the ground water and the costs whereof also is to be

built into the charges payable by the consumers.

12. I am further of the opinion that no parity can be claimed by the

petitioner with the rates being charged in other localities/colonies of Delhi.

The fact that the city of Delhi has different municipalities and several

agencies in control/charge of different areas is a hard reality. The services

of one municipality/body/authority are found to be different from that of the

other. Residents of one locality governed/managed/controlled by one

municipality/authority cannot be heard to say that the services provided by

the other are better or that they are entitled to the same services, when the

other authority/municipality is not in a position to exercise jurisdiction in

that area/locality. Thus the residents of one locality/colony cannot be said to

be similarly placed as the residents of other so as to make out a case for

discrimination.

13. The petitioner has thus failed to make out any basis for the relief

claimed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I refrain from

imposing any costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 bs (corrected and released on 13th October, 2011)