Authorities Must Decide Pending Representations Regarding Disputed Hikes in Utility Charges via Reasoned Orders

The petitioner, owner of House No. LIG-81 in Bilaspur, challenged the arbitrary hike and demand for water tax arrears by the Chhattisgarh State Housing Board.

The respondent authorities issued notices dated 24.12.2020, 19.02.2021, and 04.03.2021, demanding payments totaling Rs. 5,850 for the period between September 2019 and January 2021, threatening disconnection otherwise.

Although the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) questioning the hike, the authorities failed to decide on it and continued issuing demand notices.

The petitioner contended that the jurisdiction over the property had shifted from Lingiyadih to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, making the Housing Board's continued demands irregular.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to consider and decide upon a representation regarding the hike in water charges before enforcing demand notices.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for a reasoned decision on her grievances concerning administrative jurisdiction and excessive water tax.

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement that administrative bodies must act fairly and provide a reasoned decision when a citizen raises a substantive grievance against arbitrary financial demands.

While no specific statute was cited, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (implied by the writ nature) to ensure that administrative actions are not arbitrary and follow a procedure that allows for the redressal of grievances.

The Court observed that the petitioner had consistently sought clarification and redressal through a formal representation as early as 28.12.2020, which the respondents left unaddressed while continuing to issue coercive demand notices.

Counsel for the petitioner highlighted the shift in administrative control to the Municipal Corporation as a material fact that necessitated a review of the Housing Board's authority to levy enhanced charges.

The Court found that the grievance regarding the "acute and substantial hike" was significant enough to warrant a formal administrative review.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the tax hike itself, the Court focused on the procedural failure of the respondent authorities to provide a "reasoned and speaking order," which is an essential safeguard against administrative arbitrariness.

The respondents were specifically commanded to examine the grievances and decide the same strictly in accordance with the law by passing a "reasoned and speaking order" within 45 days from the receipt of the order.

No order was passed as to costs.