ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus SABIA KHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 11-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SABIA KHAN AND ANR. 
JULY 11, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
B 
UP. Water Supply & Sewage Act, 1975: 
Levy of various charges/fee by the Authority-Validity of-Held: High 
Court without applying its mind and without arriving at a finding of fact C 
proceeded to hold that levy of such charges/fee was impermissible in law-
Pcwer of judicial review is limited in such matters-Under the circumstances, 
all the matters are remitted to High Court for disposal afresh applying the 
relevant principles of law therefor, also by impleading the State of Uttar 
Pradesh and UP. Jal Sansthan as parties-Judicial Review. 
D 
The question which arose for determination before this Court in these 
appeals was as to whether the charges/fee levied by the Allahabad Development 
Authority were valid in la.w. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.I. Without applying its mind to all aspects of the matter relating 
to applicability of the charges/fee, High Court proceeded to hold the same as 
impermissible in law without arriving at any finding to that effect. [453-F[ 
E 
1.2. The High Court could have struck down the levy on arriving at a p 
finding of fact that levy~ng of such fee was not justified but the High Court 
should not have proceecled on the basis that all the applicants would be keeping 
the building materials on their own lands or on private lands. The High Court, 
furthermore, applied a wrong test in giving its opinion. [453-G] 
2. While dealing with the constitutionality and/or applicability/legality G 
of a Statute and/or the rules and regulations framed thereunder, the power of 
judicial review is limited. The High Court ought to have applied its mind having 
regard to the well settled principles in regard thereto and as laid down by 
this Court in various decisions. In any view of the matter, the said finding 
451 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORT', [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A could not have been arrived at by the High Court in absence of the State as a 
party in the writ petition.1454-C-DI 
3.1. The High Court should consider the writ petitions filed by the 
respondents and other connected matters, if any, applying the relevant 
principles applicable therefor. The matters are remitted to the High Court 
B for consideration afresh by impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh and U.P. 
Jal Sansthan as parties. 1454-E, F, G, HI 
3.2. It is clarified that this Court has not applied its mind to the rival 
contentions of the parties and all the contentions of the parties shall remain 
C open before the High Court 1455-AI 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4351 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I. 7 .2003 of the High Court of 
Allahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 232381/2001. 
.. 
• 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4352,4389,4391,4392,4393,4394,4397,4399,4401,4402-4403/ 
2004,5151,5455/05,7511,7512 and 7513/2004. 
M.N. Krishnamani, S. Markandey, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay (for 
E Gopal Balwant Sathe,) A.K. Misra, K.K. Tyagi, Sarada, Afteehar Ahmad, P. 
Narasimhan, Madhu Tewatia, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Pramod Swamp, 
Kamlendra Misra, Anuvrat Sharma, Rajeev Dubey, Mukesh Verma, K.C. Jain, 
E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawal, Manu Krishnan, Jayant 
Kumar, H.K. Puri, R.P. Wadhwani, S.K. Verma, Ajay K. Agarwal and Prashant 
F Kumar for the appearing parties. 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. C.A.Nos. 4351/2004, 4352/2004, 4402-4403/2004, 4389/ 
2004, 4391/2004, 4392/2004, 4394/2004, 4397/2004, 4393/2004. 
These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order 
dated I. 7 .2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 
the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein questioning the legality/ 
validity of the following rates/charges levied by the first appellant herein 
namely: 
(I) Water Charges 
ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SABIA KHAN [SINHA, J.] 453 
(2) Malwa Charges 
A 
(3) Sub-Division Charges 
(4) Development Charges 
(5) Open space charges 
In the writ petitions filed before the High Court only the first appellant B 
herein and its Zonal officers were impleaded as parties. The State of Uttar 
Pradesh and even the U. P. Jal Sansthan, another statutory body constituted 
under the provisions of UP. Water Supply & Sewage Act, 1975 were not 
impleaded therein as parties. 
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions µrimiarily 
on the premises that the Court can tak
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.