Bombay High Court
Nagpur Distillers Pvt Ltd, Thr Its ... vs The City Of N.M.C., Nagpur And Anr on 16 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 1/34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 of 2009
1. Nagpur Distillers Private Limited,
Plot Nos. 2 and 3, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur-440 026, a Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956, through its
Director-Shri Jasbirsingh s/o Jagatsingh Anand,
Aged about 68 years,
R/o. 108, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Vidarbha Distillers, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur-440 026, a partnership firm
registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932,
through its Manager-Shri Manohar s/o Prataprai Assudani,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o. Mecosabagh, Nagpur.
3. Konkan Agro Marine Industries Private Limited,
Plot No.117, Wanjra Layout, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur, a Company registered under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, through its Manager-
Shri Pandurang Narayanrao Shinde, Aged about 48 years,
R/o. East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur.
4. Raman Distillers Limited, Wanjra Layout,
Kamptee Road, Nagpur, a Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956, through its
Director-Shri Jasbirsingh s/o Jagatsingh Anand,
Aged about 68 years,
R/o. 108, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 032.
....... RESPONDENTS
with
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 2/34
WRIT PETITION NO.4156 OF 2009
1. Jattewar Sabhagriha,
Plot No.9, Ishwar Nagar Chowk, Hasanbagh Road,
Nagpur, through its Proprietor Smt. Mangala Jattewar.
2. Suyog Mangal Karyalaya,
S-1, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur - 440 022,
through its Proprietor Smt. Prabhavati Narayan Deosarkar.
3. Talmale Bandhu Sabhagriha,
Chhatrapati Nagar Chowk, Wardha Road,
Nagpur - 440 015, through its Proprietor-
Shri Vijay Natthuji Talmale
4. Mata Ansuya Sabhagriha,
256, Jagnade Chowk, Nandanwan,
Nagpur - 440 009, through its Proprietor
Shri Sanjay Madhukarrao Kale.
5. Bhojraj Lawns,
Shraddhanand Peth, S.A. Road, Nagpur - 440 022,
through its Partner Shri Venkatesh P. Buty.
6. Kamdi Sabhagriha,
Bhandara Road, Pardi, Nagpur - 440 008,
through its Proprietor Shri Mahendra Narayanrao Kamdi.
7. Ajantha Hall,
Rambagh Road, Near Baidyanath Square,
Nagpur- 440 009, through its Proprietor Shri Harish Amol Munot.
8. Shree Radhe Mangalam,
Plot No.1, Dindayalnagar, Ring Road,
Nagpur-440 022, through its Proprietor Shri Arvind Natthuji Talmale.
9. Shree Bhagwati Sabhagriha,
Renghe Nagar, Near Trimurty Nagar Chowk,
Ring Road, Nagpur 440 022,
through its Proprietor Shri Arvind Natthuji Talmale.
10. Shriram Janki Mangal Karyalaya,
252, Nandanwan Layout, Jagnade Chowk,
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 3/34
Nagpur - 440 009, through its Partner Shri Anil Ramchandra Atkar.
11. Mahalle Sabhagriha,
Adhyapak Nagar, Manewada Chowk,
Ring Road, Nagpur, through its
Proprietor Mrs. Asha B. Mahalle.
12. Shubham Mangal Karyalaya,
Plot No.12, Jagnade Chowk, Nandanwan,
Nagpur 440 009, through its Proprietor Smt. Jyotibai Gajanan Bagwe.
13. Smruti Sabhagriha,
Plot No.5, Sharda Chowk Old Subhedar Layout,
Nagpur 440 024, through its Proprietor-
Smt. Kusumtai Hiramanrao Bawankule.
14. Mudliar Sabhagriha & Lawns,
894, Shantinagar, Nagpur,
through its Partners, Shri Rajendra N. Mudliar.
15. Laxmi Mangal Karyalaya,
Gorakshan Sabha Layout, Dhantoli, Nagpur,
through its Partner Shri Dilip Jagannath Makde.
16. Naivedhyam Celebration Center,
Opposite Swimming Pool, N.A. Road, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Rajendra S. Kamdar.
17. Shantidevi Sabhagriha,
21, Nandanvan Layout, Nagpur 440 009,
through its Proprietor Shri Tulsiram Shrawanji Dhore.
18. Gannayak Sabhagriha,
Plot No. 142, Nandanwan Chowk,
Opposite Shikshak Sahakari Bank, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Harish Vishnuji Trivedi.
19. Madhur Sangam Mangal Karyalaya,
370, Ganesh Nagar, House No. 737 A, Ward No. 20,
Sangam Talkies Chowk, Nagpur, through its Proprietor Smt . Kusumbai
Jawaharlal Banode.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 4/34
20. Asha Mangal Karyalaya,
Khare Town, Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010,
through its Proprietor Smt. Kamlabai H. Aphale.
21. Sugandh Sabhagriha, Dharampeth,
Opposite N.M.C. Children Traffic Park, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Arvind Mahadeo Bage.
22. Shubh Mangal,
Bhagwaghar Layout, Dharampeth, Nagpur - 440 010,
through its Proprietor Shri Dhananjay Gangadhar Fadnavis.
23. West Nagpur Nagrik Sangh (Shreeram Sabhagriha),
Ramnagar, Near Yoga Bhyasi Mandal,
Ramnagar to L.I.T. Road, Nagpur,
Run by Mrs. Swati Narendra Pendke, Partner Shree Enterprises.
24. Shyam Lawn,
54/5, Chhatrapati Nagar Square,
Wardha Road, Nagpur 440 015,
through its Proprietor Shri Shyamnarayan Gaurishankar Mishra.
25. Mangaldeep Community Hall,
Central Excise Colony, Wardha Road,
Chhatrapati Chowk, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Dattatraya Madhusudan Khanzode.
26. Sudhanshu Hall,
Sakkardara Telephone Exchange,
Ayodhya Nagar Road, Nagpur, through its
Proprietor Shri Vikas Sudhakar Patil.
27. Mahakalkar Sabhagriha,
53, Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Madhukarrao Vithobaji Mahakalkar.
28. Madhukarrao Mahakalkar Sanskrutik Sabhagriha,
Kalamna Market Road, Surya Nagar, Nagpur,
through its President Shri Madhukarrao Vithobaji Mahakalkar .
29. Akshay Bhawan Mangal Karyalaya,
498, Nehru Nagar, Nandanwan Road, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Smt. Sakhubai N. Deshmukh.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 5/34
30. Venkatesh Sabhagriha,
Plot No. 1, Sakkardara Telephone Exchange, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Mrs. Vijaya Sudhakarrao Baitule.
31. Pragati Sabhagriha,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, through its Secretary
Shri Vinod B. Tikle, The Pragati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Nagpur.
32. Pragati Sanskrutik Bhawan,
Dighori, Umred Road , Nagpur,
Through its Secretary Shri Vinod B. Tikle,
The Pragati Co - op . Housing Society Ltd., Nagpur.
33. Pragati Bhawan,
Wardha Road, Nagpur, through its Secretary
Shri Vinod B. Tikle, The Pragati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Nagpur.
34. Indraprast Mangal Karyalaya,
Khamla Chowk, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Manoj Tukaramji Talmale.
35. Mrs. Pramilatai Dhomne Sabhagriha,
Swawalambi Nagar, Nagpur, through its Proprietor
Shri Vijay Balwantrao Dhomne.
36. Adarsh Mangal Karyalaya,
89, Sharda Chowk, Old Subhedar Layout,
Nagpur, through its Proprietor Shri Lalit Balwantrao Dhomne.
37. Siddheshwar Sabhagriha,
Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur, through its Proprietor
Shri Sudhakar S. Zade.
38. Kala Bhawan,
South Ambazari Road, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Jiwan Daulat Patel.
39. Mahatma Fule Sanskrutik Sabhagriha,
Reshimbag Chowk, Nagpur, through its Secretary
Shri Madhaorao Gholse, Mahatma Fule Education Society.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 6/34
40. Anusuya Mangal Karyalaya,
56, Perfect Layout, Ring Road, Mangalmurty Chowk,
Jaitala Crossing, Nagpur, through its Proprietor
Shri Rakesh Mukundrao Pannase.
41. Ramesh Bakde Sabhagriha,
Manewada, Nagpur, through its Proprietor
Mrs. Rekha Ghanshyam Bakde.
42. Parate Sabhagriha,
Sawarkar Chowk, Khamla Road, Nagpur,
through its Proprietor Shri Shriprakash B. Parate .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 032.
....... RESPONDENTS
with
WRIT PETITION NO.3955 OF 2009
1. Haldiram Foods International Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956,
having its Registered Office at Small Factory Area,
Wardhman Nagar, Haldiram Factory Zone No.8,
Ward No.23, Nagpur, through its Managing Director.
2. Rajendrakumar s/o Shivkisanji Agrawal,
Aged about 50 years, Managing Director of the
Petitioner No.1, R/o. Small Factory Area,
Wardhman Nagar, Haldiram Factory Zone No.8,
Ward No.23, Nagpur.
3. Sushilkumar s/o Shivkisanji Agrawal,
Aged about 42 years,
Director of the Petitioner No.1,
R/o. Small Factory Area, Wardhman Nagar,
Haldiram Factory Zone No.8, Ward No.23.
Nagpur. ....... PETITIONERS
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 7/34
...V E R S U S...
1. The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400 032.
....... RESPONDENTS
With
WRIT PETITION NO.5194 OF 2009
1. Shri Ramdeobaba Sarwajanik Samiti, Nagpur.
A Public Trust-registered under the Bombay
Public Trust Act- through its Secretary-
Shri Govindlal s/o Nityanand Agrawal,
Aged about 75 years, R/o. Ramdeo Tekdi,
Gittikhadan, Katol Road,Nagpur.
2. Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College,
through its Principal, Ramdeo Tekdi,
Gittikhadan, Katol Road,
Nagpur-440 013. ..PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400 032.
....... RESPONDENTS
With
WRIT PETITION NO.4746 OF 2009
Cine Exhibitors Association,
A body registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust
Act, 1950, with the Charity Commissioner bearing
Registration No.152/1973/F/1688 having its office
opposite Liberty Cinema, Residency Road, Sadar,
Nagpur, through its Vice-President- Shri Prashant Rathi.
....PETITIONER
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 8/34
.V E R S U S...
1. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur,
having its office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
Through its Commissioner.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
the Principal Secretary of Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-32.
....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Atharva S. Manohar, Advocate for petitioners in W.P.Nos.3802/2009, and
4156/2009
Shri S.V.Purohit, Advocate for petitioners in W.P.Nos.3955/2009 and 5194/2009.
Shri D.V.Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner in W.P.No.4746/2009.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.1in W.P.Nos.3802/2009, 4156/2009,
3955/2009 and 5194/2009
Shri S. M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent no.1-in W.P.No.4746/2009.
Ms. T.H.Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.2 in all writ
petitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON 16th SEPTEMBER, 2022
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON 16th DECEMBER, 2022
JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Since similar challenges to the City of Nagpur Corporation Assessment
and Collection of Water Rate Bye-laws 2009, have been raised in these writ
petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Writ Petition No.3802 of 2009 has been preferred by manufacturers of
country liquor/ Indian made foreign liquor while Writ Petition No.4156 of 2009
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 9/34
has been preferred by operators of various marriage halls in the City of Nagpur.
The City of Nagpur Corporation Assessment and Collection of Water Rate Bye-
laws, 1966 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 418(1) of
the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (for short, the Act of 1948) and were
published in the Government Gazette on 20.04.1966. These Bye-laws were
amended in the year 2000. Thereafter the said Bye-laws were again amended on
01.04.2009 (for short, the Bye-laws of 2009) superceding the earlier Bye-laws.
Water charges under Clause 9 applicable to various categories of consumers came
to be revised by increasing the prescribed rates. According to the petitioners, there
is no power conferred under the Act of 1948 to collect water charges that are in
the nature of tax/fee. Alternatively, according to the petitioners, the enhancement
in the amount of water charges being exorbitant and there being no quid-pro-quo
for a fee to be charged, such increase in water rates is bad in law. In this
backdrop a challenge has been raised to the Bye-laws of 2009 by seeking a
declaration that the same are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
A declaration has also been sought that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (for
short, the Corporation) cannot be permitted to recover water charges at higher
rates as prescribed.
3. Shri Atharva Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3802 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.4156 of 2009 referred to various
provisions of the Act of 1948. Referring to Section 57(1)(k) of the Act of 1948
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 10/34
it was submitted that the said provision empowered the Corporation to provide for
management and maintenance of municipal water works as well as construction
and maintenance of new works. While the Corporation could impose property tax
under Section 114(1)(a), under Section 114(2)(g) of the Act of 1948, tax could be
imposed on a subject on which the State had power to impose in the State under
the Constitution of India. Reference was made to Section 201(2) by which supply
of water was required to be made upon such terms and conditions as to payment
and quantity and for such period as the Corporation may prescribe in that behalf.
Referring to the State list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and
especially Entries 46 to 66, it was submitted that the State itself was not competent
to levy tax on supply of water. In absence of any power conferred on the
Corporation to recover water charges in the form of a tax, the Bye-laws of 2009
were liable to be struck down. To substantiate the contention that there was no
specific power in the Act of 1948 to levy fees towards supply of water, reference
was made to the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 41(2) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014
alongwith Section 5(4) and 26 thereof as well as Section 19 of the Legal Metrology
Act, 2009 to urge that in the said enactments a specific power to levy fees had
been conferred. As per Section 415(18) of the Act of 1948 though there was
power conferred to make bye-laws relating to water works, the same did not
authorise levy of fees for the same. It was further submitted that though public
notice was issued inviting objections to the bye-laws in question, it was not
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 11/34
indicated as to what material was considered by the General Body of the
Corporation before approving the amendments to the Bye-laws of 2009. There
was no meaningful right granted to the petitioners as well as the members of the
public to raise appropriate objections to such increase in water charges. Section
201 of the Act of 1948 could not be relied upon for supporting the enhancement in
water charges especially when there were no sufficient guidelines as to the manner
in which the water charges could be hiked. The learned counsel placed reliance on
the decisions in S.R.I.Roller Mills Ltd. and etc. vs. Union of India and others [AIR
1992 BOM 79], Messrs. S.S.Miranda Ltd. Vs. The State of Bombay [1955 ILR
(BOM) 336] and Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and another vs. State of Bihar
and others [(2018) 12 SCC 107] to urge that in absence of any power to levy
tax/fee the collection of water charges was without the authority of law.
It was then submitted that even if it was assumed that water charges
were in the nature of fees, there was absence of quid-pro-quo to support such levy.
The State Government as well as the Corporation had no authority to charge fees
on water works. The increase in the water rates was exorbitant and not
commensurate with the cost of water per unit. Referring to the reply filed by the
Corporation it was submitted that the charge of water was indicated to be Rs.9.94
per unit, one Unit being equal to one thousand litres. The increase in the water
charges was to the extent of twenty seven times the existing water rates for
beverages and five times for community halls which was highly unjustified.
Referring to the tripartite agreement dated 24.03.2006 between the Government
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 12/34
of India through the Ministry of Urban Development, the Government of
Maharashtra and the Corporation in the matter of grant of financial assistance
under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), it was
submitted that what was permissible was only recovery of operation and
maintenance cost. The increase in water rates had no co-relation with the
operation and maintenance cost incurred by the Corporation. Reference was also
made to various documents indicating public/private partnership in water sector
by the Corporation. The revenue from water charges being more than the actual
expenses, the hike in water charges was unjustified. Attention was also invited to
the statement of income and expenditure from the year 2001-02 and onwards to
urge that the figures indicated therein did not support the enhancement in water
charges. Referring to the decision in Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners'
Association and others Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and
another [(1999) 2 SCC 274], it was submitted that in case of a regulatory fee
where quid-pro-quo was not necessary, the fees charged should not be excessive.
There had to be a reasonable co-relationship between the levy and the services
rendered as held in Kewal Krishan Puri and another vs. State of Punjab and
another [(1980) 1 SCC 416] . In absence of the nature of services rendered being
properly indicated, the imposition of fees was unjustified as held in The
Government of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.
[(1975) 2 SCC 274]. Reference was also made to the decision in M/s. Devi Das
Gopal Krishnan, etc. vs. State of Punjab and others [AIR 1967 SC 1895]. The
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 13/34
learned counsel also referred to the judgment in Writ Petition No.4263 of 2005
(Waluj Industries Association and others vs. The State of Maharastra and others)
with connected writ petitions decided at the Aurangabad Bench on 10.10.2008 in
the matter of levying water charges at uniform rates from the industrial units
engaged in the activity of manufacturing liquor and beverages. To urge that
charges for supply of water ought to be viewed in the context of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, reference was made to the decision in Narmada Bachao
Andolan vs. Union of India and others [(2000) 10 SCC 664]. By referring to the
decision in State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher [(2018) 14
SCC 537] it was submitted that disproportionate increase in the amount of water
charges was not liable to be sustained. On this basis it was urged that the prayers
made in the writ petitions were liable to be granted.
4. Shri J. B. Kasat, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
opposed the aforesaid submissions. He referred to various provisions of the Act of
1948 to indicate that the bye-laws as framed were neither contrary to the
provisions of the Act of 1948 nor were liable to be struck down on the grounds
urged by the petitioners. He referred to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
Corporation to urge that in view of Section 201 of the Act of 1948 in the matter of
supply of water it was permissible for the Corporation to lay down terms and
conditions as regards payment and quantity for the period for which such supply
was made. Section 415 of the Act of 1948 empowered the Corporation to make
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 14/34
bye-laws for carrying out the provisions and intentions of the Act of 1948 so as to
regulate the matters specified therein. Insofar as 'water works' was concerned,
under Section 415(18) clause (g) terms and conditions for supply of water to
lands and buildings could be prescribed by making bye-laws. In exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 201(2) read with Section 415 of the Act of 1948, the
City of Nagpur Corporation Assessment and Collection Rate Bye-laws, 1966 had
been framed. With a view to amend the said existing bye-laws, the procedure
prescribed by Section 417 of the Act of 1948 was followed. Draft bye-laws were
published in the Government Gazette on 03.04.2008. Objections were invited to
the same and in response four objections were received. After hearing the
objectors, the Committee as constituted submitted its report to the State
Government on 28.11.2008. The State Government approved the said bye-laws
by its communication dated 27.01.2009. Pursuant thereto the bye-laws were
published in the Government Gazette on 31.03.2009 and the same came into effect
from 01.04.2009.
According to the Corporation, the expenditure incurred by the Water
Works Department was found to be more than the income generated by it. There
was a continuous deficit and details of the income and expenses of the Water
Works Department for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 were referred to. The
Government of India in the meanwhile launched JNNURM in the Financial Year
2005-06. To be entitled to assistance under the JNNURM, it was necessary to
undertake monetary reform of the levy of reasonable user charges with the
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 15/34
objective that the full cost of operations and maintenance or recurring cost would
be collected within the next seven years. The user charges were thus required to
be revised in such a manner that by the year 2012 the income received would meet
the full cost of operations and maintenance of the service. The Corporation on
24.03.2006 entered into a tripartite agreement with the Central Government and
State Government to enable it to receive financial assistance from them and agreed
to the norms prescribed under the JNNURM. Keeping these aspects in mind
coupled with the fact that there was no revision of the water rate in the bye-laws
since 2000, the rates were revised while framing the new bye-laws. On the basis
of estimated figure of expenses and after making calculations in a scientific
method, it was found that the cost of water per unit was Rs.9.94. While doing so
the interest of 80% domestic consumers including poor and middle class citizens
was kept in mind alongwith the aspect of cross subsidies and internal efficiency
improvement plans. After introduction of the new tariff from 01.04.2009, the
projected figures for the year 2009-10 indicated a deficit of Rs.2,103 Lakhs (Rs.
Two thousand one hundred three lakhs). On this basis, it was stated that despite
increase in the tariff rate the Corporation was not able to recover the expenses
incurred by it in providing the service from the income generated through
collection of water charges at the new rates. It was denied that the increase in the
water rates was exorbitant or that there was no basis for such increase. It was
further stated that the water rates levied under the 2009 Water Rate Bye-laws
were in the nature of a regulatory fee which did not involve the element of quid-
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 16/34
pro-quo. Even otherwise, there was a broad and general co-relationship between
the fees collected on the basis of water rates and the totality of the expenses of the
service provided. For these reasons, it was stated that the challenge raised by the
petitioners was not liable to be accepted.
5. In the sur-rejoinder filed on behalf of the Corporation, it has been
stated that the Corporation had not taken any loan for any other purpose except
for the purposes of its Water Works Department. Budget estimates had been
prepared in the manner as required by Section 86(1A) of the Act of 1948 from the
year 2006-07. It was then stated that 80% of water consumption was by domestic
consumers. This had to be cross subsidised by the remaining 20% of water
consumption. The urban water supply was mainly designed for domestic use of
water and it did not permit water supply as a raw material for any industrial use.
While finalising the water rates in 2007-08, the collection/recovery efficiency had
been taken at 72% with progressive yearly improvements. In the absence of any
objection being raised by the petitioners to the draft Bye-laws, it was clear that the
petitioners had waived their right to object and hence were not entitled to
challenge the said Bye-laws.
Shortly prior to hearing of the writ petition, additional affidavit has
been filed by the Corporation in which it has been reiterated that the water rates
had been raised only with a view to ensure that the operations and maintenance
expenses of the Water Works Department are recouped by recovery of water
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 17/34
charges from consumers and there was no deficit. It has referred to annual
operations and maintenance expenses for the Financial Year 2008-09 to 2018-19
to indicate the total income as well as the deficit therein. It is therefore stated that
in comparison with the total income, there has been a deficit for all these years.
The learned counsel for the Corporation has relied upon the following
decisions in support of his submissions:
1. B.S.E.Borkers' Forum, Bombay and others vs. Securities and Exchange
Board of India and others [(2001) 3 SCC 482]
2. Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Rghuvanshi and
another. [(1975) 1 SCC 421]
3. Hanso Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and others.
[(2008) 5 SCC 33]
4. Om Prakash and others vs. State of U.P. and others.[(2004) 3 SCC 402]
5. State of Gujarat and others vs. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S.Mahamandal
and others. [(2004) 5 SCC 155]
6. State of H. P. and others vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and others
[(2004) 8 SCC 556]
6. Shri S.V.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3955 of 2009 who were engaged in the business of manufacture and
sale of food items as well as Writ Petition No. 5194 of 2009 preferred by
petitioners who were running an un-aided education institution besides adopting
the submissions made by Shri Atharva Manohar, learned counsel, in addition
submitted that in the Bye-laws of 2000 the water rates applicable to the petitioner
engaged in manufacture, sale of food items and which also operated an
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 18/34
amusement park was Rs.12/- per unit. In the Bye-laws of 2009 the water rates
were increased by almost ten times to Rs.100/- per unit for the food industry and
Rs.540/- per unit for amusement parks. The increase was highly exorbitant
without there being any justification for such increase. It was submitted that the
college established by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2009 was an un-
aided Engineering College. While amending the Bye-laws in the year 2009,
Government aided colleges were placed in Tariff Code 9(c) while un-aided colleges
were placed in Tariff Code 9(d). The water rates prescribed for consumption
above 80 units under Tariff Code 9(c) was Rs.20/- per unit while that under Tariff
Code 9(d) was Rs.100/- per unit. It was submitted that this differentiation had no
nexus whatsoever especially in the backdrop of the fact that colleges receiving aid
and those not receiving aid were rendering similar services and imparting
education. Realising the aforesaid, Bye-laws of 2009 were again amended by
virtue of the Water Rate (Amendment) Bye-laws, 2010. Notification was
published by the Urban Development Department on 08.09.2010. Schools and
colleges irrespective of receiving grant-in-aid were clubbed together and were
placed in Tariff Code 9(C-2). As a result, from 08.09.2010 un-aided schools and
colleges were also placed in the similar slab of Rs.20/- per unit. In this backdrop,
it was submitted that the amendment to the Bye-laws of 2009 as made by the Bye-
laws of 2010 ought to be given retrospective effect. There was no justification for
charging Rs.100/- per unit for the period from 01.04.2009 to 07.09.2010. It was
urged that since the amendment was effected after realising that all schools and
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 19/34
colleges were required to be clubbed together irrespective of they receiving grant-
in-aid or otherwise, the amendment was curative in nature. It was for the general
good of all un-aided institutions. Since the mistake that had occurred under the
Bye-laws of 2009 was being corrected, there was no justification on the part of the
Corporation to demand water rates in accordance with the Bye-laws of 2009 at the
higher rate till they were amended on 08.09.2010. In this regard, the learned
counsel referred to the decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited
through the authorised signatory vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company
Limited through the Director and others [(2021) 9 SCC 657], Commissioner of
Income Tax Kolkata-III vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [(2010) 1 SCC 489],
Government of India and others vs. Indian Tobacco Association [(2005) 7 SCC
396], Allied Motors (P.) LTD. VS. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi [AIR 1997 SC
1361], Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors. vs. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd.
[(1995) 1 SCC 655], Indian Mica Micanite Industries vs. The State of Bihar and
others [AIR 1971 SC 1182] and A.P.Pollution Control Board vs. M. V. Nayudu and
others [(2001) 2 SCC 62]. It was further urged that despite specific assertions and
grounds XIII to XVI raised in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2009, there was no reply
filed by the Corporation opposing the said averments. Since it was not the object
of the Corporation to generate revenue by recovering high water rates, there was
no justification on the part of the Corporation in not granting benefit to the
petitioners of the amendment as effected in the Bye-laws in 2010. Despite making
various representations, no cognizance of the same was taken by the Corporation.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 20/34
It was thus submitted that besides quashing the increase in the water rates as
prescribed by the Bye-laws of 2009, the petitioners be held not liable to pay water
rates at Rs.100/- per unit from 01.04.2009 to 07.09.2010.
7. In reply, Shri J.B.Kasat, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, there was no question of any
mistake being rectified by the Corporation. In view of various representations
received after the Bye-laws were amended in 2009, the Corporation re-considered
the matter and thereafter proceeded to modify the Bye-laws of 2009 by clubbing
schools and colleges together irrespective of aid being received by them. Since the
Bye-laws were suitably amended, there was no question of the petitioners not
being liable to pay water rate at Rs.100/- per unit from 01.04.2009 till the same
were amended by the Bye-laws of 2010. Reference in that regard was made to
Resolution No.417 dated 28.07.2009 and Resolution No.51 dated 05.02.2010
passed by the Corporation. After due deliberations, the Tariff Code under the Bye-
laws of 2009 came to be modified. The learned counsel in support of his
submissions placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Private
Limited [(2015) 1 SCC 1]. It was thus submitted that no retrospective effect could
be given to the amendment of the Bye-laws of 2010 and the petitioners were liable
to pay the water rates initially in accordance with the Bye-laws of 2009 from
01.04.2009 and onwards and thereafter in accordance with the Bye-laws of 2010
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 21/34
from 08.09.2010.
Shri D.V.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.4746 of 2009 adopted the arguments as made in the other writ petitions. Shri
S.M.Puranik, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation adopted the
arguments of Shri J.B.Kasat, learned counsel.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance we have perused the documents placed on record. For considering
the challenge as raised to the levy of water charges by the Corporation on the
premise that the Corporation was not empowered under the Act of 1948 to levy
charges in the nature of tax while undertaking supply of water, it would be
necessary to refer to relevant statutory provisions of the Act of 1948. Under
Section 57(1)(k) it is incumbent upon the Corporation to make adequate
provisions for the management and maintenance of all municipal water works as
well as the construction and maintenance of new works and means for providing
sufficient supply of suitable water for public and private purpose. Section 114(1)
(a) authorises the Corporation to impose property taxes while Section 114(2)(g)
stipulates that in addition to taxes mentioned in sub-section (1), the Corporation
can with the previous approval of the State Government impose any other tax
which the State has power to impose in the State under the Constitution excluding
the taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. As per Section 115-
1A(1) as amended by Maharashtra Act No. X of 2010 property taxes leviable on
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 22/34
lands and buildings in the city include water tax, water benefit tax, general tax
amongst other things.
Under Chapter XVI of the Act of 1948 provisions pertaining to water
have been enumerated. While Section 200 refers to general powers of the
Corporation in the matter of supplying water, Section 201(2) permits supply of
water to be made upon such terms and conditions as to payment and quantity for
such period as the Corporation may prescribe in that behalf. It is thus clear from
Section 201(2) that the Corporation is empowered to lay down such terms and
conditions as regards payment and quantity on the supply of water. To achieve
this object, bye-laws can be framed under Section 415. Section 415(18)(a) refers
to water works while clause (g) thereof refers to the terms and conditions of
supply of water to lands and buildings and the provision of meters. The Bye-laws
are required to be approved by the State Government for being enforced
thereafter. It is in exercise of this power that the Urban Development Department
has approved the "City of Nagpur Corporation Assessment and Collection Bye-laws
2009". It is under these Bye-laws that the rates for supply of water dependent
upon the category of users and quantity supplied has been prescribed.
Under the State list in the Seventh Schedule, Entry 5 relates to local
government including Municipal Corporation. Entry 17 pertains to water supply
and Entry 66 is with regard to fees in respect of any of the matters in the State list
excluding the fees taken in any Court.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 23/34
9. From the aforesaid statutory provisions, it becomes clear that the
Corporation under the Act of 1948 has the statutory authority to supply water
upon such terms and conditions as it may prescribe. These terms and conditions
have been prescribed by framing bye-laws which have been approved by the State
Government. The Act of 1948 and especially Section 201(2) read with Section
415 (18)(g) does empower the Corporation to levy water rates on its supply. In
the light of these statutory provisions empowering the Corporation to levy water
rates, the ratio of the decisions in S.R.I.Roller Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Messers
S.S.Miranda Ltd.(supra) is not attracted in the present case. Similarly, the
delegation by the State on the Corporation to make bye-laws is also evident as
contemplated in M/s. Devi Das Gopal Krishnan (supra).
For considering the nature of this impost coupled with the aspect as to
whether the said impost is in the nature of a fee or not, reference can be made to
the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivalik Agro Poly Products and
others (supra), a decision by the Bench of three learned Judges. In paragraphs 14
and 15 thereof it has been observed as under:
"14. In a recent judgment rendered in B.S.E. Broker's
Forum v. Securities and Exchange Board of India 2001 (3)
SCC 482 by a Bench of three learned Judges, the challenge
levelled against the registration fee levied by the Securities
and Exchange Board of India on stock-brokers came up for
consideration. The Bench after review of a number of
earlier decisions, including Constitution Bench decision in
Shirur Mutt case took note of the fact that in determining
whether a levy is a fee or not, emphasis must be on
whether its primary and essential purpose is to render
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 24/34
specific services to a specified area or a class and if in that
process it is found that the State ultimately stood to benefit
indirectly from such levy, the same is of no consequence.
After examination of the relevant Act and the Regulations,
the Court held that since the amount collected under the
levy account in the said case was being spent by the Board
on various activities of the stock and securities market with
which the petitioners are directly connected, the fact that
the entire benefit of the levy does not accrue to the
contributors i.e. the petitioners, would not make the levy
invalid."
"15. It will be thus seen that the statement of law made
in Shirur Mutt case regarding the attributes of fee has
undergone a sea change. The consistent view now is that
there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee
which are both compulsory exaction of money by public
authorities. The co-relationship between the levy and the
services rendered should be one of general character and
not of mathematical exactitude. Further, the broad and
general co-relationship between the totality of the fee on
the one hand and the totality of the expenses of the
services on the other, will be sufficient to justify the levy.
The levy will not fail only on the ground that the measure
of its distribution on the persons or incidence is
disproportionate to the actual services rendered by them.
The true test being the comprehensive level of the value of
the totality of the services set off against the totality of the
receipts. The character of the fee is thus established. The
vagaries in its distribution amongst the class do not detract
from the concept of a fee as such."
10. From the aforesaid it can be seen that the difference between a tax and
a fee has now considerably watered down since both result in compulsory exaction
of money for public purpose as observed in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 25/34
another (supra). What is however required is a broad co-relationship between the
levy and the services rendered. This co-relationship has to be of a general nature
and not of mathematical exactitude. It has been also held that the levy would not
fail only on the ground that the measure of its distribution on the persons or
incidence is disproportionate to the actual services rendered. The test of co-
relation has to be reckoned at the aggregate level and not at the individual level.
Keeping these vital aspects in mind, the challenge as raised to the increase in the
water rates insofar as it is applicable to community halls to the extent of five times
and to beverages which increase is to the extent of twenty-seven times can be
considered.
11. According to the petitioners, hike in the water rates is arbitrary and
without there being any quid-pro-quo. Assuming that the Corporation is
empowered under Section 201(2) of the Act of 1948 to levy water rates, the same
should be of a nominal nature and not for the purposes of generating revenue. In
this regard, what is required to be noted is that in the Bye-laws of 2009 various
categories of users have been earmarked. It has been asserted by the Corporation
that 80% of water consumers are domestic users. The water rates have been fixed
dependent upon the category of users. Under Tariff Code 9 (a) when water is
supplied by meters to residential units, there is no charge levied for consumption
upto 8 units. The water rates gradually increase depending upon the units
consumed and when the same exceeds 80 units, the tariff is Rs.15/- per unit.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 26/34
Under Tariff Code 9(b) which is applicable for partially residential units, the water
consumption upto 8 units does not require any payment and when the
consumption exceeds 80 units the tariff is Rs.18/- per unit. Under Tariff Code 9(c)
which is applicable for institutions such as charity hospitals, public institutes like
government aided schools and colleges, etc. the rates prescribed upto 15 units is
Rs.15/- per unit and when the consumption exceeds 80 units the tariff charge at
Rs.20/- per unit. Tariff Code 9(e) comprises of two parts; namely Commercial-1
and Commercial-2. In Commercial-1 private hospitals, community halls,
industries, etc. are included. For consumption upto 15 units the tariff is Rs.25/-
per unit. When the consumption exceeds 80 units, the tariff charged at Rs.100/-
per unit. In Commercial-2 ice factories, beverage industries as well as
pharmaceutical manufacturing units amongst others are included. Here,
consumption upto 15 units is charged at Rs.60/- per unit and when the
consumption exceeds 80 units, the tariff is Rs.540/- per unit. There are other
categories in the said Tariff Code with which we are presently not concerned.
According to the petitioners, the tariff for Commercial-2 which is
Rs.540/- per unit when the consumption exceeds 80 units as compared with other
rates under the Tariff Code is on an extremely higher side.
12. It is seen that the Government of India launched JNNURM in the
Financial Year 2005-06. The object of the said Mission was aimed at creating
economical, productive, efficient, equitable and responsive Cities. To enable an
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 27/34
Urban Local Body to be eligible for grant of assistance under the JNNURM, the
Government of India required eligible Cities to undertake a mandatory reform of
the levy of reasonable user charges by Urban Local Bodies with the objective that
the full cost of operation and maintenance or recurring cost was collected within a
period of seven years. Thus, Urban Local Bodies were required to revise user
charges in such a manner that by 2012 income from user charges of a particular
service would result in recovery of full cost of operation and maintenance of that
service. For participating in the JNNURM, the Corporation entered into a tripartite
agreement with the Central Government and the State Government on
24.03.2006. In that regard, a proposal was submitted by the Executive Engineer to
the Corporation so as to revise the relevant figures to bring it in tune with the
prescribed norms. There had been no revision of water rates since 2000 and there
was a continuous deficit in that regard. After considering the relevant data by
taking year 2006-07 as the base year, the process of framing new Bye-laws was
undertaken. Considering the expenditure incurred in 2006-07 insofar as water
works is concerned, it was estimated that the expenditure for 2007-08 would be
Rs.122.57 Crores. It is on that basis that necessary calculations were made and
the cost of water per unit came to Rs.9.94. It is thereafter that the new tariff came
to be introduced from 01.04.2009. According to the Corporation, as per projected
figures for 2009-10, the total expenses were Rs.14,584/- Lakhs while the total
recovery was Rs.12,481/- Lakhs. This resulted in a deficit of Rs.2,103/-Lakhs.
According to the Corporation, despite increase in the tariff, it was not in a position
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 28/34
to recover the expenses incurred in providing necessary services.
13. It is asserted by the Corporation that 80% water consumption is by
domestic consumers and this consumption is required to be cross subsidised by the
remaining 20% water consumers. To achieve this figure of cross subsidisation
within the tariff structure, higher charges on known domestic users as well as
certain category of domestic users was adopted. Similarly, keeping the objective of
water consumption in line, the premium user of water was charged at a higher
rate. From the material placed on record by the Corporation, it is indicated that it
makes payment to the Irrigation Department for 540 million litres of water per day
from 2006-07. After the process of purification of aforesaid water, the Corporation
on an average gets 510 million litres of purified water everyday out of which the
billed volume of water is 276 million litres a day. It is on this basis that the water
rates have been fixed. Water is required to be supplied to 80% for domestic
consumers at a rate below the cost of water. Thus with a view to meet the
necessary expenses, the rates have been prescribed in the Tariff Code. The budget
estimates that have been prepared are in compliance with the provisions of Section
86 of the Act of 1948. Insofar as 'debt services' are concerned, the same pertained
to repayment of loan taken by the Corporation for augmentation of water supply
schemes and interest paid on such loan. According to the Corporation, it has not
taken any loan for any other purpose except for its Water Works Department.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 29/34
14. It is thus seen from the material on record that all relevant aspects
have been taken into consideration while determining the water rates for various
categories of users. The fact that 80% of water is supplied to domestic consumers
and the expenses in that regard are required to be cross subsidised by levying
water charges proportionately on the remaining 20% consumers cannot be said to
be an unreasonable basis for fixing the water rates. After considering the
objectives to be achieved under the JNNURM Mission and also with a view to
reduce the deficit as far as possible, the Bye-laws have been amended in 2009 from
01.04.2009. We find that all relevant data available has been taken into
consideration while determining the water rates as applicable. Viewed from the
principles laid down in Kewal Krishan Puri (supra) the water rates collected have
been shown to have been utilised for said purpose alone and not for any other
purpose. Larger public interest in view of the fact that domestic consumers
constitute 80% of total population receiving water supply has been kept in kind.
The relevant figures taken into consideration are pursuant to the budget estimates
relatable to Section 86(1A) of the Act of 1948. This Court cannot act as a Cost
Accountant to minutely verify each figure with mathematical precision. Once it is
shown that there is a broad co-relation between the levy as made and the services
provided, the same would be sufficient to negative the challenge that there has
been an arbitrary increase in the amount of water rates. It also cannot be ignored
that when public notice was issued by the Corporation inviting objections to the
proposed amendment of the Bye-laws of 2009, the petitioners had not responded
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 30/34
to the public notice by raising any objection. It is indicated from the record that
there were only four objections received which were duly considered by the
Corporation. We therefore find that the challenge as raised by the petitioners to
the increase in water rates as being disproportionate and highly excessive cannot
succeed. The Corporation has demonstrated the fair manner in which it has taken
into consideration all relevant aspects before amending the Bye-laws in 2009 and
enhancing the water rates. The larger perspective has been kept in mind coupled
with the objectives to be achieved under JNNURM. The said challenge as raised
therefore cannot succeed. The decision in Waluj Industries Association (supra)
indicates that challenge was raised to levy of water charges at uniform rate from
industrial units engaged in manufacturing liquor and beverages. The Court held
that as regards water used in manufacturing activity as raw material, higher rates
could be charged whereas for water used for allied activities, water rates could be
paid at normal charges. While admitting the writ petition on 09.12.2009 liberty
was granted to petitioners to make a representation in that regard to the
Corporation. However, there is no further material on record in that regard to
indicate that such representation was in fact made.
15. Coming to the challenge raised on behalf of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.5194 of 2009 to the recovery as sought for the period from 01.04.2009
to 08.09.2010 at the rate Rs.100/- per unit it can be seen that relief has been
sought on the premise that the imposition of the rate of water per unit at Rs.100/-
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 31/34
in the Bye-laws of 2009 was by way of a mistake which was subsequently
corrected by amending the bye-laws in the year 2010. In this regard, it is to be
noted that in the bye-laws amended in the year 2009 un-aided educational
institutions like the petitioner were placed in Tariff Code 9(d) applicable to un-
aided schools and colleges. The rate fixed was Rs.100/- per unit when water
above 80 units was supplied. Insofar as aided schools and colleges are concerned,
the same were placed in Tariff Code 9(c) and the rate of water supplied above 80
units was Rs.20/- per unit. It is seen that various representations came to be made
in that regard and after considering the same the Bye-laws of 2009 were amended
in the year 2010. In the said bye-laws insofar as institutional consumers of water
were considered, they were divided into two parts. Schools and colleges
irrespective of they receiving grant-in-aid or not were placed in Tariff Code 9(C-2)
Institution-B. Various representations were made by the petitioner from
03.05.2010 and onwards seeking reduction in the rate of water per unit.
Thereafter on the bye-laws being amended request for recovering water charges as
per the amended Bye-laws of 2010 was made but the said request has not been
acceded to by the Corporation. It is therefore required to be considered as to
whether the amendment of the year 2010 can be treated to be a curative
amendment so as to hold that even though for the period from 01.04.2009 to
08.09.2010 the rate prescribed was Rs.100/- per unit, the petitioner would still be
liable to pay charges for the said period at the amended rate for supply of water at
Rs.20/- per unit.
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 32/34
Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the
decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and sons (P) Ltd. (supra) to urge that if a statute is
of a curative nature or clarificatory in nature, it would be retrospective in nature.
Similarly, if the amendment supplies an obvious omission in a former statute, the
doctrine of relation back would be applicable. Reference was also made to the
decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd (supra) in that regard. It was urged that
rectification of a mistake by amending a provision would have retrospective effect
as held in Indian Tobacco Association (supra).
16. We find from the material placed on record that there is no basis
whatsoever to hold that the prescription of the rate of water at Rs.100/- per unit
for un-aided schools and colleges in the Bye-laws of 2009 was by way of a mistake
since the rate applicable for aided schools and colleges for supply of water was
Rs.20/- per unit. On the issue being raised by the affected parties, the matter was
re-considered by the Corporation and thereafter the Bye-laws of 2009 came to be
amended. Besides reducing the rate of water for un-aided schools and colleges
and bringing those institutions at par with aided institutions, there are other
amendments also made to the Bye-laws of 2009. Bye-law Nos.2, 6, 8 and 56
alongwith Bye-law No.9 have been modified. These modifications appear to have
been undertaken pursuant to various representations received from the affected
parties and after due deliberations in the General Body of the Corporation. It is
not a case of simple correction of a mistake but it is a conscious decision taken to
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 33/34
club educational institutions together irrespective of the fact whether they were
receiving grant-in-aid or not. It was also urged by the petitioners that since the
figure of Rs.100/- per unit was substituted by the figure Rs.20/- per unit by
amending the Bye-laws, the demand at the rate of Rs.100/- per unit for the
relevant period was not justified. As stated above, there is no material on record
to hold that placing educational institutions together irrespective of they receiving
grant-in-aid or not is an exercise of substitution. Same is the result of modification
of the Bye-laws of 2009 which was a considered decision acting upon
representations as received and deliberations as undertaken by the Corporation.
Resolution No.417 dated 28.07.2009 and thereafter Resolution No.51 dated
05.02.2010 clearly indicate that such exercise was undertaken after considering
the objections received by the Corporation.
We therefore hold that the amendment to the bye-laws carried out in
the year 2010 cannot be said to be a result of rectification of an earlier mistake or
curative in nature so as to entitle the petitioners to seek a declaration that for the
period from 01.04.2009 to 08.09.2010 the water rate at Rs.20/- per unit for an
educational institution which was un-aided is liable to be paid. The declaration as
sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.
17. Hence for aforesaid reasons we do not find that the petitioners are
entitled for the reliefs sought by them in the writ petitions. The Bye-laws of 2009
are not liable to be set aside on the grounds urged by the petitioners nor can
WP-3802-09 with Conn. WPs (J) 34/34
retrospective effect be given to the Bye-laws of 2010 as urged. All the writ
petitions stand dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
16.12.2022 18:22
