JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5834 of 2005. The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein questioning the levy of increased water charges on ground that it cannot be given retrospective effect by the respondent herein.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant - PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 for manufacturing and distributing carbonated soft drinks, bottled drinking water and other food products. Appellant stated that it is one of the leading manufacturers of Carbonated Soft Drinks and bottled drinking water in the entire State of Maharashtra and a significant portion of the entire national demand for the appellant’s product is met from the production made within the State of Maharashtra itself.

4. The State of Maharashtra, represented by Secretary, Deptt. of Industries, Mantralaya is respondent no. 1, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [“MIDC”] is respondent no. 2 which is responsible for infrastructure required for any industry, i.e. land, water and electricity. All the Industrial Estates of State Government in Maharashtra come under the purview of respondent no. 2. MIDC at Roha Div. Alibag is respondent no. 3 and is the branch of respondent no. 2 and shares the same objective. Department of Irrigation is respondent no. 4 and is responsible for the supply of water to all industrial estates under respondent no. 2 in Maharashtra.

5. The appellant stated that respondent no. 2, acting through respondent no. 3 invited business undertakings to set up industrial units in the industrial areas to add impetus to industrial development in the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the appellant decided to set up its manufacturing plant in the State of Maharashtra at Paithan, Distt. Aurangabad and Roha, Dist. Raigad. In this case, however, we are concerned with the manufacturing plant of the appellant located at Roha.

6. The primary business of the appellant is to manufacture non-alcoholic beverages in its plant and for the manufacturing of the same, water is used as one of the raw materials.

7. The plant from where the appellant operates its unit at Roha, Maharashtra was earlier owned by another company by the name Voltas India Limited. The said company had entered into a Water Supply Agreement with respondent no. 3 for its facilities at Dhatav, Roha under the Water Supply Regulation Act, 1973.

8. There are regulations in respect of supply of water, namely, ‘Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Water Supply Regulations’. Regulation 2(2) defines “Consumer”, which means any person or persons who has applied for supply of water from any works of the Corporation and to whom MIDC has agreed to supply water or any person or persons otherwise liable for payment of water charges to the Corporation. Clause 27 of the Water Supply Agreement provides that the Respondents shall fix charges for water from time to time and increase or decrease the water charges in its discretion after giving notice of one month to the consumer. Clause 36 of the Water Supply Agreement provides for penalty in case of failure on part of the consumer to pay the water bill. Clause 27 of the Water Supply Regulations, 1973 are as under:

“Clause 27: Water Rate: The charges for water shall be fixed by the Corporation from time to time. The Corporation shall increase or decrease the water charges in its discretion after giving notice of one month to the consumer. The rates of water charges so fixed or altered shall be conclusive and be binding on the consumers.”

Regulation 28 provides for recovery of arrears on account of water charges or any other expenses incurred by the Corporation in connection with water supply to the consumer, which shall be recoverable as arrears of land reven