Bombay High Court
Shri Vijaykumar S. Rajput & Another vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 9 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000BOM192, 2000(1)BOMCR833, (2000)1BOMLR650, AIR 2000 BOMBAY 192, (2000) 1 ALLMR 74 (BOM), (2000) 1 BOM CR 833, 2000 (1) BOM LR 650, 2000 BOM LR 1 650
ORDER Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of Rule 1 of the Water Charges Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The real grievance of petitioners is that the rate of water charges applicable to supply of water to premises used for exclusively residential purpose being Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres, there is no justification for charging Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for supply of water to premises used for commercial purposes. Charge of Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres of water supplied to premises used for commercial purposes, according to the petitioners, is most arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Water Charges Rules of the Bombay Municipal Corporation specify the water charges rates for different groups of consumers. These rules were framed by the Standing Committee of the Bombay Municipal Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 169 and 276 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the Water Charges Rules which came into force with effect from 5th April 1987. These Rules provide for charging for water supply to certain classes of premises by meter measurement instead of levy of water tax. Rule 1 prescribes the rates of water charges for different groups of consumers. This rule also specifically provides that if the water supplied to any premises is used for different purposes for which separate rates are chargeable under the different Clauses of Rule 1 and no separate meters are installed to measure the water used for each such purpose, the highest rate chargeable for any such purpose shall apply to the whole quantity of water supplied to such premises subject, however, to the provisions of Rule 2.3. Rule 2.3 provides that in the case of premises having the metered supply, if any part or parts of it are used for a purpose where the different rate or rates are chargeable and where separate meters cannot be fixed for any reason or for practical difficulties, a compounded charge worked out at the appropriate rates on the estimated quantity of water consumed pro-rata to the rent or rateable value or on the basis of estimated quantity on requirement basis, may be recovered at the discretion of the Hydraulic Engineer. Nine different rates are prescribed by Rule 1 for different categories of premises based on the use to which they are put. We are concerned here with the rate prescribed for premises used for exclusively residential purposes and the rate prescribed for commercial premises such as shops, offices, banks, etc. In the present case, admittedly, the premises in question are used both for commercial and residential purposes. It is not used exclusively for residential purposes. The rate prescribed for premises exclusively used for residential purposes under Rule 1.1 is Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres whereas the rate prescribed for premises used for commercial purposes is Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres. There is no dispute about the fact that no separate meters have been installed to measure separately the water used for residential purposes and commercial purposes. The case of the petitioners does not fall under Rule 2.3. That being so, in view of the provisions in Rule 1, the petitioners were asked to pay the higher of the two rates i.e. the rate applicable to the commercial premises for the whole quantity of water supplied to the petitioners.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the different rates prescribed for different categories are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, there is no justification of charging Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for water supplied to premises used for commercial purposes as against Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres for water supplied to premises exclusively used for residential purposes.
4. We have perused the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("Act"). Section 169 of the Act empowers the Standing Committee from time to time, to make, inter alia, such rules as may be necessary for the supply of water and for charging for the supply of water. It also empowers the Standing Committee to determine the charges for the supply of water by a water tax or in lieu of water tax, based on a measurement or estimated measurement of the quantity of water supplied, or combined charges. In exercise of this power, the Standing Committee framed the Water Charges Rules. These rules provide, inter alia, the rates to be charged for water supply to different classes of premises including premises belonging to the Government, Port Trust, etc. Rule 1 of the Rules sets out the rates of water charges applicable to different classes of premises. The rates of water charges range between Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres to Rs. 150 per 10,000 litres. The lowest rate of Rs. 3 per 10,000 litres is applicable to premises used exclusively for residential purposes, educational institutions, non-recreational clubs, places of worship and prayer halls, gardens and/or lawns attached to residential premises, prisons and jails. The rate applicable to halls used for religious and social functions, canteens attached to educational institutions, premises vesting in and belonging to Government, Port Trusts, Railways, Charitable hospitals, etc. is Rs. 30 per 10,000 litres. The rate applicable to laundries, printing press is Rs. 45 per 10,000 litres. The rate applicable to shops requiring water for trade purposes, banks, shopping centres, etc. is Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres. The same rate is applicable to properties belonging to Life Insurance Corporation, Mazgaon Dock, Air India, Indian Air Lines, Bombay Housing & Area Development Authority, M.T.N.L., etc. The rate applicable to aerated water factories, ice factories, cold storage plants, air-conditioned cinema house, cine studios is still higher. It is Rs. 100 per 10,000 litres. The highest rate of Rs. 150 per 10,000 litres is applicable to premises used as race course, five star hotels and chemical industries. Specially lower rate of Rs. 2.50 per 10,000 litres has been made applicable to water supplied to Aarey Milk Colony. It is clear from the above that different rates have been prescribed for different types of premises based on their user. Evidently the classification of the premises for the purpose of rates of water charges is not arbitrary. The classification of different premises into different categories for the purpose of fixing rates of water charges is founded on rational principles. Prescribing lower rates of water charges for premises used exclusively for residential purposes cannot by itself be regarded as discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no arbitrariness in fixing the rate at Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for premises used for commercial purposes. On a careful perusal of Rule 1 of the Water Charges Rules and the classification of the premises for the purpose of charging different rates of water charges, the Standing Committee has applied its mind to make a reasonable classification. There is nothing to show that the classification is arbitrary. Situated thus, it is difficult to hold Rule 1 of the Water Charges Rules discriminatory. Law is well-settled that a legislation is not to be struck down as discriminatory if any state of facts may reasonably be conceived to justify it. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the Court may also take into consideration matters of common knowledge. Moreover, the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of enactment since it must be assumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. The burden of showing that the classification is arbitrary and not founded on reasonable basis is upon the person, who impeaches the law on the ground of violation of the guarantee of equal protection. Moreover, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ashok Soap Factory v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, , fixation of tariff is a legislative function and the only challenge to the fixation of such levy can be on the ground of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. In the present case, as indicated above, the petitioners have failed to show that the classification of premises for charging different rates of water charges made by the Corporation is arbitrary or based on no rational criteria.
5. The Corporation has rightly prescribed very low rate of water charges for the premises used exclusively for residential purposes. That cannot by itself be a ground to challenge the fixation of rate of Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for supply of water to premises used for commercial purposes. In the present case, the admitted position is that the premises used by the petitioners are not exclusively used for residential purposes. They are used for both residential and commercial purposes. If the petitioners want to avail of the benefit of lower rate of water charges applicable to premises used exclusively for residential purposes, they are at liberty to apply for separate meters. In that case, they will also be entitled to get the benefit of the lower rate applicable to water supplied to the premises which is used for residential purposes.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioners to the fixation of different rates of water charges for different classes of premises by Rule 1 of the Water Charges Rules of the Bombay Municipal Corporation on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In our, opinion, the classification is reasonable and is founded on rational principles. In view of the above, in our opinion, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.