Trust Estate Khimji Keshawji vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 4150 OF 2021

TRUST ESTATE KHIMJI KESHAWJI & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of judgment

and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by Division Bench

of Calcutta High Court whereby intra court appeal

preferred by appellant was dismissed affirming the

judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed by

learned Single Judge disposing off the writ petition of

Signature Not Verified the appellant with directions.

Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.07.06 16:43:10 IST Reason: 1

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are

summarized hereunder:

3.1. Notice dated 22.08.2008 was issued by

Kolkata Municipal Corporation1 under Sections

238 and 271 of the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation Act, 19802. The said notice was

addressed to the appellant describing it as owner

or occupier of premises No.30, C.R. Avenue,

Kolkata. It stated that appellant had

contravened Section 238 of the Act by using

water supplied for domestic purpose, for

purposes other than domestic; that there was no

permission under Section 271 of the Act for

using water supplied for domestic purposes for

any other purpose; that such unauthorised use

is a punishable offence under Section 610 of the

Act making the appellant liable for prosecution;

1 In short “KMC” 2 In short “the Act”

2 and that if the said contravention is not stopped

immediately, the water connection would be cut

off under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The said

notice is reproduced hereunder:

“Form No. W.S.4 THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Water Supply Department

(Notice to desist from contravening Section 238 & 271 of C.M.C. Act, 1980)

Notice No…..018 Section/Ward….G/47 Dated…..22.08.08 To Estate Khimji Keshawji The Owner or Occupier of the Premises No.30, C.R. Avenue It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that in contravention of the provision of Section 238 of the C.M.C. Act, of 1980 (W.B. Act LIX of 1980) the water supplied for domestic purpose in the premises no.30, C.R. Avenue, Ward No.47 is being used/and or allowed to be used for purposes other than domestic in the premises viz. Business & Office.

Please note that under the provision of Section 271 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 no person shall, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner use or allow to be used water supplied for domestic purposes, for any

3 other purposes. Besides, the unauthorised use is a punishable offence under Section 610 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 and you may be liable to prosecution.

The undersigned as such, require you forthwith desist from using or allowing to be used water supplied to the premises no.30, C.R. Avenue, Ward No.47 for any purpose other than domestic purpose, failing which the water connection would be cut off or the supply of water thereto would be turned off under the provision of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, without any further reference.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Asst. SAE,W.S./G Exec.Engineer Engineer Section ‘G’ Water Supply(C)

C.P.-67 – 28-10-06-5,000 Dated 22.08.2008”

3.2. It would also be relevant to state that

another notice of even date was issued for

contravention of Section 258 read with Section

558 of the Act calling upon the appellant to

immediately remedy the fault in the supply line

failing which KMC would itself carry out the

repair work and recover its expenses from

appellant. It further warned the appellant that

4 supply could be turned off or cut off under

provisions of Section 275(1)(f) & (i) of the Act.

3.3. Proceedings with respect to the notice

under Section 258 of the Act came to an end as

repair work was carried out by appellant to the

satisfaction of KMC. As such only issue which

survives for consideration is the validity of notice

under Section 238/271 of the Act.

3.4. The appellant preferred writ petition before

the High Court registered as WP No.1414 of

2008 challenging the notice under Section

238/271 of the Act. In the said petition it was

stated that appellant was owner of the said

premises which comprised of ground floor and

six floors. Apart from the top floor and the

ground floor which was occupied by the

appellant for residential purposes, rest of the

floors were let out to various offices and

commercial establishments. Various other

5 grounds were raised in the petition. However, for

consideration of this appeal, following grounds

raised would be relevant which are stated

hereunder: -

(i) The notice was only addressed to the owner

and not to all the occupiers, details of which

were available with KMC as trade licences

were issued by it from time to time in favour

of different occupants.

(ii) Under Section 272(4) of the Act, which begins

with a non-obstante clause, it was provided

that wholesome water may be used in lieu of

unfiltered water for non-domestic purposes

where supply of unfiltered water is not

available. It is admitted case that unfiltered

water is not available in the locality where the

premises in question is situate.

(iii) The impugned notice was non-speaking as it

did not give details of alleged violations; as

6 such no specific response could be given by

the appellant.

(iv) The contravention of Section 275(1)(c) of the

Act gives the power to the Commissioner to

cut off or turn off supply of water where

occupier of the premises contravenes Section

238 of the Act. It was as such submitted that

without notice to various occupiers the notice

itself was bad in law.

(v) The owner (appellant) was using the water

supply only for residential/domestic purposes

as such there was no violation of any

provision by them.

(vi) The appellant had also filed supplementary

affidavits before the writ court stating all

further facts relevant to the case and also

annexed the trade licences issued to various

occupants, wherein it was clearly mentioned

7 that the water charges were being charged

under Section 238(2) of the Act. This in effect

permitted use of wholesome water for

purposes other than domestic.

3.5. The learned Single Judge did not agree with

submissions of the appellant and accordingly held the

notice to be valid. It however granted liberty to the

appellant to seek necessary permission for use of

water in their premises for non-domestic purposes

from the Municipal Commissioner under Section 239

of the Act. Such application could be filed within

seven days from the date of the judgment which was

to be dealt with in accordance with law by a reasoned

order within four weeks of submission of such

application. Further, it kept the impugned notice in

abeyance till an order is passed by the Commissioner.

It also granted liberty to the appellant to recover fees,

which it may have to pay in seeking the permission,

8 from the occupiers. The operative portion of the order

of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:

“…In view of the aforesaid discussion I hold that the impugned notice upon the writ petitioner No.1 is lawful and valid. In similar circumstances, another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashwin Properties Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Reported in 2005 (4) CHN 134 upheld similar notice upon the owners of the premises. However, in view of the fact that the writ petitioners are entitled to seek necessary permission for user of water in their premises for non domestic purposes from the Municipal Commissioner, I grant liberty to the writ petitioner to make an application in terms of Section 239 of the Act of 1980 before the Municipal Commissioner for seeking permission for user of water in the premises for non domestic purpose. In the event, such application is made within seven days from date, the Municipal Commissioner shall deal with the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order thereon. The Municipal Commissioner shall pass such an order within four weeks from the date of making such application for permission. In the event, an application is made within the period as stated

9 hereinbefore, the impugned notice dated 22nd August, 2008 under Section 238 read with Section 271 of the Act of 1980 shall remain in abeyance till an order is passed thereon by the Municipal Commissioner, as aforesaid.

I make it clear that any application for necessary permission for use of water for non domestic purposes and payment of any fees therefore by the petitioners as the owner of the premises would not stand in their way of availing of any remedy available in law to recover the same from the occupiers of the premises and the Corporation authorities shall render all necessary assistance in that regard in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. All interim orders stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs...”

3.6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single

Judge the appellant preferred an appeal before the

Division Bench which came to be dismissed vide

impugned order dated 19.11.2019.

10 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and also perused the material on record including the

counter affidavit filed by KMC.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be

appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory

provisions from the Act. The following definitions from

Section 2 of the Act which are relevant for this case

are reproduced hereunder:

(21) "Corporation" means the 2[Kolkata]

Municipal Corporation established under this Act;

(29) "domestic purposes", in relation to the supply of water means the purposes other than those referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 238;

(38) "filtered water" means waler intended for domestic use and tested for its potability and purity and found fit for such use;

(60) "occupier" includes any person for the time being paying or liable to pay to the

11 owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which the word is used or for damages on account of the occupation of such land or building, and also a rent-free tenant:

Provided that an owner living in or otherwise using his own land or building shall be deemed to be the occupier thereof,

(62) "owner" includes the person for the time being receiving the rent of any land or building or any part of any land or building, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any person or society or for any religious or charitable purpose or as a receiver who would receive such rent if the land or building or of any part of the land or building were let to a tenant;

6. Part-V of the Act deals with Civic Services and

Chapter XVII thereof deals with water supply. Section

234 mandates that it shall be the duty of the KMC to

take steps for supply of wholesome water in the entire

Kolkata and also to ensure that it is available in

12 sufficient quantity. Section 234(1), which is relevant

for our purpose is reproduced hereunder:

“234. Corporation's duty to supply water:-

(1) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to take steps from time to time—

(a) for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of water supplied within 1[Kolkata];

(b) for providing a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every part of 1[Kolkata] in which there are houses, for domestic purposes of the occupants thereof, and for taking the pipes affording that supply to such point or points as will enable the houses to be connected thereto at a reasonable cost, so, however, that the Corporation shall not be required to do anything which is not practicable at a reasonable cost or to provide such a supply to any part of 1[Kolkata] where such a supply is already available at such point or points aforesaid:

[Provided that the Corporation may, at any time, levy an annual fee at such rate as may be fixed by regulations, or as stated in the budget estimate under sub-section (3) of section 131, in this behalf, on the owner or the occupier of, or on the person liable to pay 2 [property tax] on, any house to which such supply of wholesome water is made:

13 2[Provided further that the Corporation may levy annual fee on the basis of annual valuation of buildings or premises in a graded manner, at such rates, as may be determined by the Corporation by regulations, but such rate shall not exceed ten per cent of the annual valuation as may be so determined or seperately calculated in respect of the premises or building or portion thereof.].]

[Explanation I.- Supply of water shall include supply through service mains of the Corporation or through tubewell allowed to be sunk within the premises or both or procured from any other municipal source.

Explanation II.- "House" includes a building, flat as defined in the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 (West Ben, Act XX of 1993), or apartment as defined in the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (West Ben. Act XVI of 1972);]

(c) for providing, as far as possible, a supply of wholesome water otherwise than in pipes to every part of 1[Kolkata] in which there are houses, for domestic purposes of the occupants thereof and to which it is not practicable to provide a supply in pipes at a reasonable cost, and in which danger to health arises from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply and a

14 public supply is required and can be provided at a reasonable cost, and for securing that such supply is available within a reasonable distance of every house in that part.

7. Section 234(A) of the Act gives a right to the

owner of a building to recover fee for supply of water

from the occupier thereof, who uses the same for

residential purpose or otherwise. The proviso thereto

further permits that amount may be apportioned in

case there are more than one occupier. The aforesaid

Section is reproduced hereunder:

“234A. Recovery of fee for supply of water by owner from occupier:-

The owner of a part or flat of a building for which fee for supply of water is charged may recover the entire amount of such fee from the occupier thereof who uses it for residential purpose or otherwise:

Provided that if there is more than one such occupier, the amount of fee for supply of water may be apportioned or recovered from each such occupier in such proportion as the annual value of the portion occupied by him bears to the total annual value of the building comprising such part or flat.”

15

8. Section 235 of the Act mandates that KMC shall

provide supply of unfiltered water in Kolkata. The

proviso to the said Section allows the Corporation to

discontinue supply of unfiltered water where supply

of wholesome water in sufficient quantity is available.

The said Section is reproduced hereunder:

“235. Supply of unfiltered water.-The Corpora- tion shall provide a supply of unfiltered water—

(a) in those parts of 1[Kolkata] in which such water is provided at the commencement of this Act, and

(b) in such other parts of 1[Kolkata] as it may think fit:

Provided that the Corporation may discontinue the supply of unfiltered water in any part of 1[Kolkata] where a supply, in sufficient quantity, of wholesome water becomes available.”

9. Section 238 of the Act restricts the use of

wholesome water for domestic purposes only and

further provides the purposes for which wholesome

water may not be used. The said Section is

reproduced hereunder:

“238. Supply of water for domestic purposes not to include any supply for certain specified

16 purposes.-

(1) The use of wholesome water shall be for domes-

tic purposes only.

(2) The supply of water for domestic purposes un- der this Act shall not be deemed to include any supply—

(a) for washing of animals kept for sale or hire, or

(b) for such trade, manufacture or business as may be determined by the Mayor-in-Council, or

(c) for fountains or swimming baths, or

(d) for watering gardens or streets, or

(e) for any ornamental or mechanical purpose, or

(f) for building purposes, or

(g) for flushing purpose other than the purpose of flushing privies in bustees, or

(h) for washing cars, carriages and [other vehicles, or

(i) to any institutional building, assembly building, business building, mercantile building, industrial building, storage building or hazardous building, referred to in sub-clause (c), sub-clause (d), sub- clause (e), sub-clause (t), sub-clause (g); sub-clause

(h), or sub-clause (1), as the case may be, of clause (2) of Section 390, or to any part of any such build- ing, other than that used as a residential building or educational building within the meaning of sub-

17 clause (a) or sub-clause (b), as the case may be, of clause (2) of Section 390:

Provided that in. case of emergency, wholesome water may be used for extinguishing fire.”

10. Section 271 of the Act restricts any person to use

water supply for domestic purposes for any other

purpose without written permission of the

Commissioner. The said Section is reproduced

hereunder:

“271. Water supplied for domestic purposes not to be used for non-domestic purposes.- No person shall, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, use or allow to be used water, supplied for domestic purposes, for any other purposes.”

11. Section 272 of the Act mentions the purposes for

which unfiltered water can be used. The same is

reproduced hereunder:

“272. Use of unfiltered water.- (1) Unfiltered water shall be used for the following purposes :

(a) extinguishing of fire;

(b) street watering;

18 (c) flushing of drains of the Corporation, gully-pits, public privies and urinals.

(2) Unfiltered water may also be used, free of charge,

(a) for flushing privies and urinals in private prem-

ises connected with sewers;

(b) for flushing of drains in private premises;

(3) Unfiltered water shall not be used for domestic purposes or, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, for any purposes other than those specified in sub-sections (1) and (2).

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore in this Chapter, wholesome water may be used in lieu of unfiltered water for non- domestic purposes where the supply of unfiltered water is not available for the time being.”

12. The Municipal Commissioner under Section 275

of the Act is vested with the power to cut off or turn

off supply of water to premises under various

conditions which are enlisted therein. Under Clause

(c) of Section 275(1) of the Act, one of the conditions

provided is where the occupier of the premises

contravenes Section 238 of the Act. As this case does

not relate to any other violation except contravention

19 of Section 238 of the Act, Section 275(1)(c) of the Act

is reproduced hereunder:

“275. Power of Municipal Commissioner to cut off or turn off supply of water to premises:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Municipal Commissioner may cut off the connection between any water works of the Corporation and any premises to which water is supplied from such works, or may turn off such supply, in any of the following cases, namely:

....................

(c) if the occupier of the premises contravenes section 238;”

13. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellant are summarized hereunder:

(i) The impugned notice is bad in law as it is a non-

speaking notice and does not give any details of the

violation. It is vague and general in nature to which

no specific reply can be given.

(ii) Despite the fact that KMC was well aware of the

other occupiers of 1st to 5th Floor of the building in

20 question, as trade licenses were already issued to

such occupiers, no notice was given to them thereby

vitiating the entire proceedings.

(iii) The appellant, who is the owner of the building

and occupied only the ground floor and the 6th Floor

had been using the water supply only for domestic

purposes and not for any other purpose, as such, the

notice to the appellant was liable to be discharged.

(iv) It is admitted position that there is no supply of

unfiltered water in the locality where the building in

question is situate and, as such, the use of wholesome

water for non-domestic purposes is permitted under

Section 272(4) of the Act. The impugned notice under

Section 271/238 of the Act, thus stood vitiated in law.

(v) As per the trade licenses issued by the KMC in

favour of the occupiers of the 1st to 5th Floor of the

building in question, property tax was being levied for

use other than domestic and water charges were also

levied for such use, as such also the impugned notice

21 was liable to be discharged. The use of wholesome

water for purposes other than domestic was permitted

and justified.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent-KMC sought to justify the notice and

submitted that as liberty had been given by the

learned Single Judge to take appropriate proceedings

for rectification of the lapses on the part of the

appellant, this Court may not interfere with the same.

The notice under Section 238/271 of the Act was valid

and justified as admittedly the occupiers of 1st to 5th

floor were using it for commercial/business/office

purpose, which was other than residential. The

learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench

rightly did not interfere with the impugned notice.

There is no illegality warranting interference, as such,

the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

22

15. Having considered the submissions, we find that

this appeal deserves to be allowed not on one but on

many counts.

16. We have perused the notice impugned in the writ

petition before the learned Single Judge. The said

notice is under Section 238/271 of the Act. Section

271 of the Act prohibits use of water supply for

domestic purpose for any other purpose. Section

238(2) of the Act provides for the purposes for which

supply of water for domestic purposes cannot be

used. Section 238(2) of the Act enlists nine categories

for which supply of water for domestic purpose should

not be used. It was, therefore, incumbent for the

authorities to mention the specific violation in the

notice under Section 238(2) of the Act and specify that

supply of domestic water was being used for which

purpose other than domestic. The impugned notice

does not mention any reason or specific violation

committed by the appellant. It is a general and a

23 vague notice to which apparently no

answer/explanation could be given.

17. Law on the point is well settled that where a

notice is vague and non-speaking, the same deserves

to be quashed. Reference may be had to the following

cases:

(i) Biecco Lawrie Ltd. Vs. State of West

Bengal; (2009) 10 SCC 32.

(ii) K.Vinu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu;

2019 SCC Online Mad 123.

(iii) Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs.

Workers Union; (1974) 3 SCC 318.

(iv) Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.;

(2009) 12 SCC 40.

18. Under the Scheme of the Act, it was the

Corporation’s duty to supply water. Section 234 of the

Act clearly mandates that the KMC was duty bound

to ensure and take necessary steps from time to time

24 for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of

water supply within Kolkata. The above Section

further laid down the guidelines and the procedure for

levy of annual fee where water was being supplied to

any building. It also carved out exceptions where no

fee would be levied on supply of water.

19. The Scheme of the Act further provided two

categories of water being supplied by the KMC. First

is the filtered water or wholesome water which was

potable also and could be used for domestic purposes

and the other is unfiltered water which could be used

for purposes other than domestic which are enlisted

under Section 238 of the Act. The Scheme further

provided under Section 271 of the Act that water

supply for domestic purposes could not be used for

any other purpose except domestic without written

permission of the Commissioner.

20. Section 272 of the Act describes the purposes for

which unfiltered water can be used, for example,

25 extinguishing of fire, street watering, flushing of

drains of the Corporations for flushing privies and

urinals in private premises, for flushing of drains in

private premises. Under sub-Section 3, it is provided

that unfiltered water would not be used for domestic

purpose without written permission of the

Commissioner or for any purpose other than those

specified in sub-Sections 1 & 2. Sub-Section 4 starts

with a non-obstante clause and it states that

wholesome water may be used in lieu of unfiltered

water for non-domestic purposes where supply of

unfiltered water is not available.

21. In the present case, it is admitted position that

there is no supply of unfiltered water in the

locality/area where building in question is situated.

As such, the filtered water or the wholesome water

could be used for purposes other than domestic by

the owner/occupier of the building in question. Thus,

26 it cannot be said that there was any violation of

Section 238 or 271 of the Act.

22. The non-obstante clause in Section 272(4) of the

Act clearly mentions that notwithstanding anything

contained in hereinbefore in this chapter which covers

Section 271 as also Section 238 of the Act as the

entire scheme of water supply is covered under

Chapter XVII of Part-V beginning from Section 233

right up to Section 276 of the Act. Section 272(4) of

the Act would thus have overriding effect with respect

to all the provisions of that chapter namely Chapter

XVII of Part V of the Act.

23. The appellant had annexed copy of the trade

licenses issued to the occupiers of 1st to 5th floor, copy

of the same are attached as part of the supplementary

affidavit (Annexure P-8). The fee and charges under

various Sections of the Act are mentioned in the trade

license. Rs.1,000/- was being charged as fee under

Section 199 of the Act which refers to a certificate of

27 enlistment for profession trade and calling. Further

fee/charges have also been levied under Section 307

of the Act which is for levy of fee for drainage and

severage services. Thereafter, fee/charges have been

levied under Section 435 of the Act where premises

are to be used for non-residential purposes. The next

fee/charge is under Section 238(2) of the Act for use

of water.

24. From the above, it is clear that trade license was

issued for use of the premises by the licensees for

purposes other than non-residential and necessary

levy for fee under various heads including water

charges was also made. In such fact situation, it could

not be alleged by the KMC that there was any violation

of Section 271 or 238 of the Act where specific license

has been issued for use of the premise for other than

residential purpose and moreover where there was no

supply of unfiltered water in the area/locality. The

occupiers would, therefore, be well within their rights

28 to use water supply for domestic purpose for any

other purpose in view of Section 272(4) of the Act.

25. KMC was fully conscious and aware of the

occupiers of all the seven floors of the building in

question i.e. the ground floor plus six floors. They

were also aware that the appellant, who is the owner

of the building was occupying the ground floor and

the 6th Floor. KMC had issued trade licenses to all the

occupiers of the 1st to 5th Floor. The statute primarily

lays down the liability on the occupier of the building

to pay water charges. It was therefore mandatory for

the Corporation to first give notice to the occupiers

and make an attempt to recover the charges from

them. It is only upon failure to recover dues, if any,

from the occupiers that the demand could be raised

against the owner. In the present case, KMC having

failed to initiate any proceedings against the

occupiers committed serious error in initiating the

proceedings only against the owner.

29

26. There is one more reason why notice to the

occupier was essential. The notice mentioned that in

case water supply for domestic purpose was being

used for any other purpose other than domestic,

under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the water supply

could be cut off or turned off. Section 275(1)(c) of the

Act, which is already reproduced above clearly refers

to occupier of the premises contravening Section 238

of the Act. Therefore, notice ought to have been

addressed to the occupier in the first place before

cutting off the connection or turning off the supply.

27. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the

Corporation before this Court and also from the

specific stand taken by the Corporation before the

High Court, it is apparent that KMC admits that there

is no supply of unfiltered water in the area. Once that

is the fact situation coupled with demand of charges

on water for purposes other than domestic as per the

30 trade license, the impugned notice cannot be

sustained.

28. The High Court committed error by not relying

upon the non-obstante clause in sub-Section 4 of

Section 272 of the Act as it would have overriding

effect over anything contained in that chapter i.e.

Chapter XVII. Section 272(4) of the Act, therefore,

would have overriding effect over and above Sections

238 and 271 of the Act, once, it is admitted position

that there was no supply of unfiltered water. The use

of wholesome water for purposes other than domestic

cannot be held to be violative of any of the provisions

and all the more when the trade license permitted use

of the same.

29. Section 271 of the Act prohibits any person from

using water supply for domestic purposes for any

other purpose without the written permission of the

Commissioner. Here, we find that the trade license

which is issued by the KMC actually permitted use of

31 water supply whether filtered or unfiltered. Further

in the absence of any supply of unfiltered water, the

wholesome water could be used for non-domestic

purposes.

30. For all the reasons recorded above, the Appeal

deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and

orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court

and the learned Single Judge are set aside.

31. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The

impugned notices therein are hereby quashed.

32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

33. KMC would be at liberty to initiate such

proceedings as may be permitted in law afresh.

….………………………………..J. (B.R. GAVAI)

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH) NEW DELHI JULY 05, 2023

32