JUDGMENT - BHARUCHA S.P., J.:-These four appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment because they raise the identical questions.

2. We narrate the facts of only the first appeal. The appellants therein are doing the business of dyeing and printing at Industrial Estate, Kandivli, Bombay. They had originally an ½ inch water connection. In 1971 they applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (the first respondent) for a larger connection. In June 1975 they were given 1½ inch connection. It is the case of Corporation that, on 24th September 1975, it fixed a water quota for the appellants in the figure of 27,18,000 litres per month. This is disputed by the appellants, but we shall proceed upon the basis that this quota was fixed.

3. Water Charges Rules effective from 1st April, 1976 came into force and we are concerned with the vires of Rule III(d)(i) thereof. This Rule provide, “In case of industries for which a quota of water has been fixed, if the recorded or computed consumption falls short of 9/10th of the quota of water for any month, a consumption equal of 9/10 of the quota of water shall be charged”.

4. Up to June 1977 water charge bills were sent to the appellants on the basis of their actual consumption. In July 1977 the appellants received supplementary bills for the difference between the charge on the quota basis under the said Rule and the actual consumption basis. The appellants protested that though they had kept their taps open for the full 24 hours of the day water was not available to make up anywhere near the quantity of the quota. It is the appellants' case that the Corporation agreed to verify this. At the same time, the Corporation threatened to cut off the appellants' water supply so that the appellants were constrained to file the writ petition to restrain the Corporation from so doing.

5. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10th September, 1981. He found no substance in the petition and discharged the Rule. This was also the fate of the other three writ petitions. The appeals impugn the orders of dismissal.

6. Mr. Nain, learned Counsel for the appellants in the first appeal, made the following submissions. The Counsel appearing for the appellants in the other three appeals adopted his submissions. Mr. Nain submitted (1) that the said Rule was ultra vires the rule-making power of the Standing Committee of the Corporation being inconsistent with the provisions of section 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; (2) that the Corporation was, in any event, not justified in charging on the basis of the quota because it was in no position to supply the quantity of water fixed thereby; (3) that the said Rule did not provide any guideline in respect of the industries to which it was to be applied and as to how the quota was to be fixed. We do not propose to consider any submission other than the first because we are with the appellants thereon.

7. It is necessary to note the provisions of section 169 of the Act. The relevant portion reads thus:-

“169.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 128, the Standing Committee shall, from time to time, make such Rules as shall be necessary for supply of water and for charging for the supply of water and for any fittings, fixtures or services rendered by the Corporation under Chapter X and shall be such Rules determine -

(i) xxxxxxxxxx

(ii) a water charge in lieu of a water tax, based on a measurement or estimated measurement of the quantity of water supplied;...”

8. Section 276 of the Act provides that where water is supplied by measurement, the Commissioner may either provide a meter and charge the consumer rent thereof or permit the consumer to provide a meter of his own which should be of the approved specifications. Section 277 states, “Where water is supplied by measurement, the register of the meter or other instrument for measuring water shall be prima facie evidence of the quantity consumed.” Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document