Gujarat High Court
Raysangji Abhaji Chauhan vs Surat Municipal Corporation on 2 July, 2021
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13193 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15111 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAYSANGJI ABHAJI CHAUHAN & 4 other(s)
Versus
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
APPEARANCE DELETED(23) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR SHIRISH H. SANJANWALA, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR DILIP
KANOJIYA for the petitioners in SCA No.15111 of 2014
MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI(2578) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 02/07/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)
1. The writ-applicants of both the writ-applications are in
the business of supplying water to the various units in GIDC,
Pandesara, Surat. Both are also in the business of supplying
water to the residential units as well as the industrial houses.
2. The facts giving rise to the Special Civil Application
No.15111 of 2014 are as under :-
2.1 The writ-applicants Nos.1 and 2 are carrying on business
in the Pandesara Industrial Estate of selling and supplying
water to various industrial units through bore-wells. The writ-
applicant No.3 represents the labour Union and they are
labourers working in the units situated in the Pandesara
Industrial Estate.
2.2 According to the writ-applicants, the Surat Municipal
Corporation is not able to supply sufficient water to the
Pandesara Industrial Estate. The industrial units are compelled
to take water supplied through the tankers and private bore-
wells. The workers are thus facing serious problem of earning
their livelihood and they are compelled to live life without
dignity.
2.3 The workers made representation to the writ-applicant
No.3 to represent their case before this Court in view of the
arbitrary policy of the Corporation that the industrial units are
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
not permitted to purchase water from the private suppliers,
and in the event the industries purchase water from the
private suppliers, they would be held responsible for such
conduct by imposition of fine.
2.4 The Pandesara Green Environment and Water Welfare
Co.Operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the
'Association' for short) and the Surat Municipal Corporation
( hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for short) entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (Agreement) (page-69)
on 16.10.2012 as per Clause (12) pursuant to the resolution
passed by the Corporation in its general body meeting on
30.3.2011. As per Clause (12) of the resolution dated
13.3.2011, the industrial units shall have to take water only
from the Surat Municipal Corporation.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the MoU entered into
between the Corporation and the Association, the writ-
applicants approached this Court by filing the Special Civil
Application No.15111 of 2014, seeking the following reliefs :-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold that the
provisions of Rule 16 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949 being ultra-vires Articles 14, 19 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and YOUR LORDSHIPS
may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
respondents not to take any proceedings under Rule 16 on
the ground that previous permission in writing of the
Commissioner is no obtained:
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside
Clause No.13 of the Agreement entered into between the
Surat Municipal Corporation and the Industrial Unit holders
and - the Resolution Clause 12 dated 30.3.2011 as bad and
illegal and violative of Articles - 14, 19 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing. the respondents not to operate the said Clause
No.13 of the Agreement and the Resolution Clause 12 dated
30.3.2011 and compel the petitioners to take water only from
the Surat Municipal Corporation and not to take water from
the private suppliers of water through the water tankers etc.
like the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and in default, to levy penalty
of Rs.1,000/- per tanker or any such amount be stopped;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside the notice dated
23.7.2014 issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation and the
Surat Municipal Corporation may be restrained by an
appropriate writ from enforcing any such letter to the Unit
holders of Pandesara GIDC Estate;
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondent Corporation and its Officers and
Agents and Servants not to seal the premises where bore-
wells are situated and bore-wells and not to restrain the
tanker operators from supplying water and not to compel the
industrial houses, more particularly, situated in GIDC
Pandesara not to take water from any other private sources
except from Surat Municipal Corporation and shall not take
any coercive steps in this regard;
(F) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain
respondent No.1 - Surat Municipal Corporation and
respondent No.2 - Executive Engineer, South Zone, Udhna
from in any way restraining the persons like the petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 and various other Unit holders of the Pandesara
GIDC estate from supplying water to the industrial units
situated in the GIDC Industrial Estate, Pandesara through
water tankers etc. and YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
restrain the Unit and various units functioning in the GIDC
Industrial Estate, Pandesara to take water only from the Surat
Municipal Corporation and in default thereof, to impose
penalty of Rs.1,000/- per tanker or similar amount;
(G) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
present case."
4. The facts giving rise to the Special Civil Application
No.13193 of 2014 are as under :-
4.1 The writ-applicants are carrying on the business of
supplying water from the bore-well situated in the private
land. The writ-applicants possess the requisite leave and license
agreement to carry on the business of supplying water to the
people of the city of Surat. The writ-applicants are supplying
water to the residential units as well as industrial houses.
4.2 According to the the writ-applicants, a show-cause
notice came to be issued by the respondent-Corporation under
Clause 16(1) of Chapter-14 of Schedule-A of the Act, seeking
explanation from the writ-applicants as to why the
unauthorized bore-well cannot be removed, as per Clause 16(2)
of Chapter 14 of Schedule-A of the Act.
4.3 The writ-applicants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the said action of the Surat Municipal Corporation, approached
this Court by way of filing the Special Civil Application
No.13193 of 2014, seeking the following reliefs :-
"(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the respondent
authorities from in any manner not to stop or intercept the
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
petitioners activity of water sues in the limit of Corporation to
the needy area through private bore-wells and not to apply
any coercive method to stop this activity directly or indirectly.
(B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this
petition, the Hon'ble court may kindly restrain respondents,
its servants and agents from in any manner intercepting or
restraining the petitioners from supplying water through
private bore-wells and not to give threat or coercive
treatment to the petitioners or their employees.
(C) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and
proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
5. The prayers sought for in the Special Civil Applications
Nos.15111 and 13139 of 2014 are almost identical and the
issues raised in both the writ-applications are with respect to
the supply of water by private suppliers supplying water
through private bore-well to the residents of the city of Surat
as well as the industrial houses. The writ-applications are,
therefore, clubbed together and are being taken up for
adjudication.
6. This Court passed the following order on 25.6.2021 in the
Writ Petition (PIL) No.6 of 2021 :-
"1. Mr. Manoj Danak, the learned counsel appearing for the
writapplicant has not joined the video conference.
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
2. We have heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.2 - Surat Municipal
Corporation.
3. Mr. Pandya has given us a fair idea as regards the subject
matter of this litigation filed in public interest. Mr. Pandya
has drawn our attention to two writ-applications, which are
pending as on date before the learned Single Judge. Mr.
Pandya further informs that in those two writ-applications,
some interim relief has been granted and such relief has a
direct bearing so far as the present writ-application filed in
public interest is concerned. In such circumstances, post this
matter on 02.07.2021 alongwith the Special Civil Application
No.13193 of 2014 and Special Civil Application no.15111 of
2014 after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble The
Chief Justice.
Let all the three matters be notified together."
Accordingly, the Special Civil Applications are placed before
this Court for adjudication.
7. The writ-applicants in both the writ-applications are
aggrieved by the restrictions imposed by the respondent -
Surat Municipal Corporation in supplying water through private
bore-wells and not permitting to supply water at the Pandesara
Industrial Estate and other areas of the city of Surat.
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicants of Special
Civil Application No.15111 of 2014 :
8. Mr. Shirish H. Sanjanwala, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that it is a fundamental right of the writ-applicants
to carry on their business. The writ-applicants cannot be, in an
arbitrary and unjust manner, restricted from supplying water
through water tankers to the industrial units at the Pandesara
Industrial Estate.
8.1 It was submitted that the respondent-Corporation issued a
show-cause notice to the writ-applicants on 10.7.2014 under
Clause 16(1) and (2) of Chapter-14 of Schedule-A of the
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The writ-
applicants produced permission taken from the respondent -
Corporation for digging private bore-wells. The writ-applicants
replied to the said show cause notice on 14.7.2014, stating
that digging of bore-well did not fall within the purview of the
aforesaid clause, since the writ-applicants are possessing
requisite permission taken from the respondent-Corporation for
digging private bore-well. The show-cause notice, therefore,
could not be enforced against the writ-applicants and the
respondent-Corporation could not restrain the writ-applicants
from supplying water through their own bore-wells and the
notice dated 10.7.2014 be withdrawn. The writ-applicants
further replied on 7.7.2014 through their advocate raising the
legal issues as well as the factual contentions.
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
Submissions on behalf of the respondent - Surat
Municipal Corporation :
9. Per contra, Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 - Surat Municipal
Corporation, submitted at the outset that the writ-applicants
have challenged the agreement dated 16.10.2012 and the
Clause (12) of the resolution dated 30.3.2011 arrived at
between the Association and the Surat Municipal Corporation.
It is submitted that the writ-applicants were not the party to
the agreement arrived at between the Association and the
Surat Municipal Corporation.
9.1 It was further submitted that a duty is cast upon the
respondent-Corporation to see that the water supplied by the
private suppliers is in accordance with the parameters as laid
down by the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) / Central Public
Health Engineering and Environment Organization (CPHEEO) or
the organizations like WHO as well as the provisions of the
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.The
relevant extract from para-12 of the affidavit-in-reply of the
Corporation is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"12. .........drinking water standard - IS 10500-2012 of
Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) / Central Public Health
Engineering and Environment Organization (CPHEEO) or
the organization like WHO, the first respondent, under
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
the provisions of the statute, are required to undergo all
the water quality testing requirements towards testing of
essential water quality parameters like Turbidity, Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS), pH, Ammonia, Total Hardness,
Free Residual Chlorine (FRC) etc. so specified by
thedrinking water standard IS 10500-2012 of BIS, whereas
the private suppliers do not have any mechanism or
machinery or water quality monitoring and testing
facilities / laboratories to meet with such requirement or
the specifications fixed by the above referred agencies.
Hence, the stand of respondent authority is justified that
water is dealing with public health and is supplied
accurately".
9.2 It was submitted that the writ-applicants as well as the
respondent-Corporation both are governed by the provisions of
the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the
same are required to be complied with. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16
and 17 of the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent-Corporation
are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.
"(14) It is stated that u/s. 189 of the BPMC Act, the
first respondent has to arrange to supply the water to any
portion of city from the municipal water works by means
of private water connections or public stand post or any
other means, which shall be incumbent of the first
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
respondent to take all such measures as may be
practicable to ensure that sufficient supply is available for
meeting the reasonable requirements of the citizens of
such portion of city.
(15) It is stated that u/s.194 of BPMC Act, except with
the permission of the Corporation, no persons shall erect
any building for any purpose whatever on any part of
such area as shall be demarcated by the first respondent
surrounding any lake, tank, well or reservoir from which
a supply of water is derived for a municipal water-work.
(16) It is stated that as per the provisions of sub-section 1
of Section 196 of BPMC Act all the existing public
drinking fountains, tanks, reservoirs, cisterns, pumps,
wells, ducts and works for the supply Of water for the
gratuitous use of the inhabitants of the City shall vest in
the Corporation and be under the control of the first
respondent. Sub-section 2 Of Section 196 of BPMC Act,
the first respondent may maintain the said works and
provide them with water and when authorized by the first
respondent in this behalf may construct any other such
works for supplying water for the gratuitous use of the
inhabitants of the city of Surat.
(17) It is stated that as per the provisions enumerated in
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
sub-section 1 of Section 16, Chapter 13 Schedule-A of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 no
person much less and individual can supply water through
tube wells, tankers, or by any other means, without prior
permission of the first respondent in writing within the
territorial jurisdiction and limits of city of Surat. In the
present case on hand, the petitioners have miserably
failed to produce or reliable piece of evidence which can
be suggested that the petitioners have approached the first
or the second respondents seeking the permission has
contemplated in the statute i.e. the BPMC Act, and have
received the permission from the hands of the first or the
second respondents in connection with supplying water to
the Pandesara GIDC Industrial Estate. In fact, the reply
dated 14.7.2014 to notice dated 10.7.2014 is also not
spelled out that the petitioners have taken the permission
from first and second respondents and continued their
business illegally and unauthorizedly and supplying the
water to units / plot holders of the said industrial estate
by colluding with the plot or the unit holders, wherein
the plots/units holders get the necessary water at a low
rate and also escaped from paying water taxes to the first
respondent if they sought supply from the first respondent
officially and to save the tax and higher rate for good
quality water, the unit or plot holders have issued the
Certificates to the petitioners only with a view to see that
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
they get water at cheap rate and easily escape from
paying the water tax to the first respondent."
9.3 It is further submitted that the writ-applicants were
never stopped from carrying on the business of water supply
through tankers in the city of Surat by the respondent-
Corporation after following the rules and regulations framed
for the said purpose. The restriction is only qua the supply of
water to the industrial unit holders situated at the Pandesara
Industrial Estate, who are the members of the Association and
have agreed with the terms and conditions of the agreement of
the Corporation. Except that, the writ-applicants are free to
sell water through tankers anywhere in the city of Surat in
accordance with the procedure established under the law.
9.4 It is further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this
Court was pleased to hear the matter on 28.4.2015, and after
a bi-parte hearing, was pleased to pass a detailed reasoned
order whereby, by way of an interim relief, the writ-applicant
was granted liberty to supply water, and if there is any breach
of license or digging of any bore-well without any permission
or license, consequences would follow and the first and the
second respondents were granted liberty to take necessary
action. It would be open for the writ-applicant to carry on
such business of supply of water through tankers without
violating any rules with regard to the bore-well, license for
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
such bore-well or any other restrictions which may be
reasonably imposed by the Corporation as per the rules. The
learned Judge (Rajesh H. Shukla, J as His Lordships then was),
by way of granting interim relief in the Special Civil
Application No.15111 of 2014, held in paragraph-7 as under:-
"7. By way of interim relief, the petitioners would be at
liberty to supply water and if they commit any breach of
licence or digs any borewell without any permission or
licence necessary consequences may follow and the
Corporation may be at liberty to take necessary action.
Therefore, it will be open for the petitioners to carry on such
business of supply of water through tanker without violating
any norms with regard to the bore-well, licence for such
bore-well or any other restrictions which may be reasonably
imposed by the Corporation as per the rules."
9.5 The writ-applicant filed a Civil Application (for orders)
No. 7685 of 2015 before this Court with a following prayer
that:-
"the order passed by this Court on 28.4.2015 in the
aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 15111 of 2014
may be "suitably modified so that the petitioners can
supply water through their tankers and pipelines to the
industrial units at Pandesara till the pendency and final
disposal of the main Special Civil Application.".
The said Civil Application came to be dismissed by an order
dated 17.7.2015, and this Court, in para 3 of the order, has
specifically observed as under: -
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
"3. ...........The court has passed a specific order in para
7 which is self-explanatory that the petitioners were at
liberty to supply water subject to the rider that if any
breach of any condition of licence or digging bore-well
etc. is committed, consequences may follow. It is also
made clear that other restrictions which may be
reasonably imposed by the Corporation as per rules would
apply. Therefore, there is no need to make any
clarification as sought by learned Sr. Counsel Shri
Sanjanwala which is in fact trying to modify that the
petitioners may be permitted to supply water through
tankers without any riders stated in the original order."
9.6 He has further submitted that on 27.8.2014, the
respondent-Corporation once again called the writ-applicant to
personally remain present on 1.9.2014 with the documentary
evidence, to which the writ-applicant appeared before the
respondent-Corporation and a further opportunity was granted
and he was heard on 9.9.2014. The writ-applicant was heard
by the Additional City Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) and
the Additional City Engineer (Civil). The first respondent
accorded a personal hearing to the writ-applicant on 20.2.2015
and passed an order dated 13.8.2015 under Section 478 read
with Section 16(2) of the Act directing closure of the business
of the writ-applicant.
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
10. We have heard Mr. Shirish H. Sanjanwala, the learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, the learned
advocate for the writ-applicants in the Special Civil Application
No.15111 of 2014 and Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - Surat Municipal
Corporation in Special Civil Application No.15111 of 2014.
11. When the Special Civil Application No.13193 of 2014 was
taken up for hearing, neither the writ-applicants nor the
advocate for the writ-applicants joined the video conference. It
appears from the record that the writ-applicants are served
with the notice of this Court but they have chosen not to
appear. In view of the similarity of the issue involved, the
same is also taken up for adjudication.
Analysis :
12. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, we are of the
view that the writ-applicants were permitted to continue their
business in accordance with the rules and regulations of the
GPMC Act, 1949, by interim order dated 28.4.2015 passed in
the Special Civil Application No.15111 of 2014.
13. The writ-applicants of the Special Civil Application
No.15111 of 2014 have not challenged qua prayer (A) of the
writ-application which challenges Rule 16 of the GPMC Act,
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
1949, being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A
of the Constitution of India.
14. In view of the above considered factual aspects and
taking into consideration the submissions of the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the following position
emerges:
(a) The writ-applicants have narrowed down their challenge
to the agreement entered into between the Corporation and the
Association as per Clause (12) of the resolution passed by the
Corporation in its general body meeting dated 30.3.2011. The
writ-applicants are not a privy to the agreement entered into
between the Corporation and the Association and the resolution
was passed in the general body meeting of the Corporation
dated 30.3.2011 qua the industrial units.
(b) The Memorandum of Understanding is entered into
between the Corporation and the members of the Association
dated 16.10.2012, from which it is clear that the writ-
applicants are not party to the said agreement, though the
workers have espoused their grievance through the writ-
applicant No.3, i.e. Labour Union, and have reproduced their
grievance in the present writ-application.
(c) The MOU dated 16.10.2012 governs the relationship
between the Surat Municipal Corporation and the Pandesara
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
Green Environment & Water Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd.
pursuant to the resolution dated 30.03.2011 of the Municipal
Corporation under which the Industrial Units are required to
take water only from the Surat Municipal Corporation.
(d) The applicants are not parties to the said agreement and
are not directly affected by the terms & conditions arrived at
between both the parties. The applicants, having narrowed
down their challenge to the agreement, they cannot be said to
have been aggrieved so as to grant them any relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(e) The applicants are not able to establish that they are
deprived of their legal right to carry on the trade or they have
sustained any legal injury. The applicants having no right,
legal or contractual, the applicants are not entitled for a writ
of mandamus for setting aside the terms & conditions of the
said Memorandum. The applicants can carry on their business
in accordance with law as no one has barred them from
conducting their business for which they may have to follow
the rules and regulations of the Surat Municipal Corporation.
The same cannot be, in any terms, said to have infringed any
right by any means.
(f) It appears that the writ-applicants are seeking writ of
mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
impugning the resolution of the Corporation which is not even
binding to the writ-applicants in any manner. Hence the writ-
applicants cannot be, in any way, said to have been aggrieved
by the aforesaid agreement.
(g) The respondent-Corporation has submitted that the writ-
applicants are in no way restrained from conducting their
business of providing water through water tanker from their
private bore-well and continue their business. It is always open
for the writ applicants to conduct their business in accordance
with the prevailing rules and regulation.
15. Hence it is clear that there is no restraint of any nature
against the writ-applicants to conduct their business. There is
nothing on record to show that the self-imposed restriction on
the members of the Association as per the terms of the
agreement with the Corporation affects the writ-applicants
especially when the same is governed by an agreement for
supply of water to the members of the association only. The
said agreement nowhere puts any restriction or even a
condition on the writ-applicants in administering their trade
and profession of water-supply. Even otherwise, the terms and
conditions of the agreement are to be followed by the parties
to the agreement and any violation of the same has its
consequences in the agreement itself and the writ-applicants
has no role to be played in the same. Adherence or violation
C/SCA/13193/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2021
of the terms of the agreement between the Association and the
Corporation is in the realm of a private contract and this Court
has no role to play to settle or amend the terms of the
contract on the insistence of a litigant who is not even a party
to the contract.
16. Hence this Court does not deem it fit to pass any
directions in favour of the writ-applicants, but it is made clear
that there is no restriction on the writ-applicant to carry on
their business of water-supply except that they have to adhere
to the rules and regulations of the concerned authorities for
water-supply. The same is required to be followed by the writ-
applicants in its proper sense and any violation of the same
may lead to its consequences as per the prevailing rules and
regulations.
17. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the
totality of the issues involved in both these writ-applications
and in view of the findings of the Special Civil Application No.
15111 of 2014 no further orders are required to be passed in
the Special Civil Application No. 13193 of 2014.
18. Accordingly, both the writ applications are disposed of.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
