A letter to the CM

Sir/Madam,

Recently, the Chennai High Court upheld the decision of the Municipal Council authorities to suspend water supply to those residents who failed to pay their water tax. Although this seems like a very simple method to deal with the defaulters, the underlying consequences are multiple. In my case, I live in a cluster of apartments along the Usman road in T Nagar, Chennai, along with 20 others. When it so happens that one of us fails to pay up the water tax for various reasons, the suspension of the water supply will not happen individually but for the whole building. Does this mean the authorities see it fit to deprive even the honest tax-payer of what is due him? Water is a natural resource, and the reason I pay a tax for it is because it is delivered to the taps in my home by an institution whose duty is to do so. Therefore, it will be justified on my part to expect, nay demand, for my supply to be restored when I have paid my tax. Unfortunately, the High Court’s decision makes this impossible. My question is why the lawyers as well as the judges have upheld such a frail decision by the Municipal Council authorities.

Secondly, the law has also made it inadmissible for an apartments’ association to take any action against such defaulters, thereby making silent persuasion the only available course of action for the irked and the deprived. If such associations were given the right to disconnect the water supply to the erring resident, then the law need not step in from time to time to resolve such issues. Furthermore, with the decision making power in the hands of those who can truly and more quickly make a difference in the way things are run, a greater degree of compliance with the rules can be established as well as issues of non-compliance can be dealt with more quickly. However, with the said decision being taken, the number of cases of inconvenience in and around the city is definitely posed to increase.

What I would like to stress upon in this letter is that the Municipal Council has, in essence, not concentrated sufficiently on this issue. Although it is improper to abstain from paying one’s taxes, the actions taken thereupon to accordingly penalise the defaulter must ensure two things: first, that services to those who do pay their taxes are not disrupted in any manner, and second, that the concerned person does not repeat his or her actions again. If a such a thing as a municipal council has been established to this effect, then what they are doing does not seem right. Following a similar train of thought, it is now in my capability to demand that all branches of the Chennai Silks franchise in the city be demolished just because their T Nagar branch has failed to comply with the corresponding architectural rules. If a rule or a law is framed, then it must function and behave as one. It cannot curtail one offense by stifling a large group of similar people. I, as a citizen, can only demand that my rights and opportunities remain the same as they were previously; however, I am also driven to ponder upon the manner in which this situation has been deliberately complicated.

Mukundh V

T Nagar

(P.S. One copy each of this letter has been sent to the municipal council, the EiC of the Hindu publication, and the CM’s office. Awaiting response.)