LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus NAGPAL PRINTING MILLS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" '
I
J
'1'
A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY
v.
NAGPAL PRINTING MILLS & ANR.
•
MAR~H 17, 1988
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
A,
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: ss. 169, 276, 277 and
;.
./61/Water Charges and Sewerage & Waste Removal Rules, 1976: Rule
A.
lll(d)(i)-Water-Supply of-Determination of water char!(es-Cor-
'
c poration empowered to levy charge only in respect of water actually
supplied and consumed-Rule III(d)(i) containing no methodology for
~
measuring water supplied-Held beyond rule making power of Cor-
poration.
Section 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
D
empowers the Standing Committee to make rules to charge for the
supply of water and by such rules to determine the water charges in lieu
of water tax based on a measurement or estimated measurement of the
quantity of water supplied. Section 276 provides for fixing of meters for
measurement of water supplied and maintaining the instruments in
A
proper order. Bye-laws framed under s. 461 in 1968 empowered the
~
E
Commissioner to fix a quota. Rule III(d)(i) of the Water Charges and
'l
Sewerage and Waste Removal Rules framed in exercise of the powers
given by ss. 169 and 276 of the Act which became effective in 1976
I
provided for charging for the shortfall between the quota and the
-
'
recorded consumption in respect of industries for which a quota has
.,
'
been fixed.
'
'
F
.,.A\-
The respondents were being charged for water upto June, 1977 on
the basis of their actual consumption. In July, 1977 they were sought lo
J
be billed for the difference between the charges on the quota basis
under the said rule and the actual consumption basis, which was
objected to by the respondents. The writ petition filed by them in the
G
High Court was rejected by a single Judge.
In appeal before the Division Bench it was contended that the
>--...
Rule III(d)(i) of the Rules was ultra vires the rule-making power of the
Standing Committee of the Corporation being inconsistent with s. 169
of the Act. The High Court held that s. 169 empowers the Corporation
H
to levy charge only in respect of the water that has in fact been supplied
274
t
MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. NAGPAL PRINTING MILLS [MUKHARJI, J.[
275
to and consumed by the consumer and it is to be levied on the basis of A
measurement or estimated measurement, and struck down the rule.
~,:{
Dismissing the special leave petition ided by the Municipal
\
Corporation,
)
=,, - A
I
_,
•
•· j
I'
HELD: There being no methodology in Rule III(d)(i) of the B
Water Charges Rules for measuring the actual water supplied, that rule
is beyond the powers of the Corporation. The High Court, was, there-
fore, right in striking it down. [278H; 279AJ
The Corporation cannot estimate and charge on the basis of water
it makes available for use by a consumer. The supply referred to in s.
C
169 of the Act, is a supply which is, in fact, supplied to the consumer
and consumed by it. It is only that supply which can be measured.
Where the measuring device has failed to record the correct consump-
tion it might be estimated. But that must be on sound guidelines
otherwise it would be arbitrary and mere. ipse dixit of the authorities
concerned. [278D-E]
D
The bye-laws made in 1968 empowering the Commissioner to
fix a quota do not indicate any guidelines. That is bad and unwar-
ranted. \l278E]---i
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
E
(C) No. 13154 of 1987,
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1987 of the Bombay
High Court in Appeal No. 425of1981.
R.P. Bhatt and D.N. Mishra for the Petitioner.
Shri Narain and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition for leave to appeal
G
under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the Judgment
and Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, dated
September 16, 1987. The respondents were in the business of dyeing
and printing at Industrial Estate, Kandivali, Bombay. They had origi-
nally an 1/2 inch water connection in their premises. In 1971 they had
applied to the Municipal Cm;poration of Greater Bombay, for a lar_ger
H
A
B
c
D
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11988] ~ S.C.It
water connection. In 1975 they were given an l'h inch connection. It
appears that on 24th September, 1975, according to the Corporation,
it fixed a water quota for tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.