F.I. Rebello, J.

1. 1. Petitioners by the present petition by way of relief have sought to recall or rescind the letter dated 17-9-1999 whereby respondent Corporation intimated to the petitioners that the property tax as set out therein are still payable and for further relief to recall or rescind the warrant of attachment at Exh. AG dated 27-9-1999 issued in connection with non payment of Sewerage tax. Various other reliefs are also sought in terms of Prayer Clause (a). Prayer Clause (b) is for a writ of prohibition to restrain respondents from taking any further steps in respect of the impugned wrongful demand for sewerage taxes as contained in the letter of respondent No. 4 dated 17-9-1999 at Exh. AH as also the warrant of attachment as set out earlier.

.2. A few facts may be set out which are necessary for deciding the controversy which has arisen and arising out of

.the subject matter of the petition. The petitioners contend that it is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1975. It has Central office at Bombay and offices and branches at elsewhere. The petitioners are in occupation of the premises pursuant to an indenture of lease. Petitioners contend that all along they have promptly and without delay paid the bills raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of water charges, sewerage charges and property taxes in connection with occupation of the leased premises. The premises were vacated in December, 1988 leaving behind some security guards and finally the premises were surrendered to the petitioners on 31st July, 1999.

.3. On or about 5-2-1997 the petitioner was served with a bill by respondent No. 3 for purported water supplied to the petitioners at the demised premises which according to the petitioners was exorbitant as while petitioner was functioning from the premises with 150 staff members, the bills for water consumption and or charges were always in the region of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. The petitioner aggrieved corresponded with the respondents. Respondent No. 3 without applying its mind continued to raise several other bills for water supply which according to petitioner were exorbitant and unreasonable and not based on actual consumption or on the basis of just average consumption. The petitioner returned all such bills raised upto September, 1997 with a request to rectify and amend the same and to forward the correct bills. In June, 1997, it is pointed out respondent No. 3 wrote to the petitioners setting out that the bills were correct. The petitioners were also informed by the said letter that the water meter at the demised premises had been removed by respondent No. 3 in March, 1997 as the same was found defective. The petitioner was directed to deposit the sum named there towards repairing charges of the meter which

.the petitioner did. In spite of that the petitioner was served with further bills for water charges which were exorbitant and unreasonable and baseless. The meter in spite of charges being paid, was not reinstalled after due repairs nor was the meter replaced.

.4. On 10-3-1999 the respondents received demand from respondent No. 4 for the payment of sewerage taxes for the period June, 27, 1977 to March 31, 1999 amounting to Rs. 25,72,125/- pursuant to disconnection of water supply in June, 1997. It is the case of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of disconnection of the water supply and neither had any notice been given to them in respect of the matter of disconnection nor were they afforded any opportunity to show cause before disconnection. In spite of the correspondence, respondent failed to give justice to the petitioner and on the contrary started demanding sewerage tax as set out in Paragraph 12 of petition. Petitioners therefore, have been served the impugned wrongful warrant of attachment. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

.Various additional affidavits have been fi