Dharamsee Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary ... on 5 December, 2001
12. Needless to say that this Court as well as the Apex Court have consistently upheld classification of consumers based on the residential and commercial premises. Classification inter-se between the commercial premises has also been held to be permissible by this Court while dealing with challenge in the case of Piem Hotels and another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, . The challenge in the report was that the standing committee has no power to make classification of the consumers and prescribe different charges for different consumers for the same quantity of water and prescribes rates and charges on the basis of paying capacity of consumers concerned. The constitutionality of sections 140 and 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporations Act, 1888 was under challenge in the report. This Court held that the classification made in taxing economical affluent class cannot be said to suffer from vice of discrimination or arbitrariness nor can such classification is said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once it is found that the standing committee is competent to make classification in respect of the premises or in respect of consumers or users of water. It is further held that the classification of the premises and consumers with regard to the commercial premises or commercial use cannot be faulted particularly keeping in view the social welfare project. Classification of consumer having capacity to pay is proper and cannot be termed to be hostile. In view thereof, we do not find any fault whatsoever in the classification made between the domestic and non-domestic consumers and further charging more on the basis of capacity to pay more, much less to the consumers availing bulk water supply. Moreover, if the water rates of non-domestic supply are not revised or kept equivalent to rates with domestic rate, the water rates of domestic consumption will shoot up and ultimate sufferer will be common man. The said notification cannot be said to be unreasonable. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the provisions of Act, Rules and Bye-laws, we have no manner of doubt in holding that the Board was justified in their action of charging more to the non-domestic consumers and to the bulk water consumers in particular.