CHAGLA, C.J.:- The petitioners are the owners of a building situated on the Marine Drive and their main grievance is that the Municipality of Bombay, instead of levying a water-tax upon this building, is charging them for water according to measurement, and their contention is that Section 169, City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, which confers that power upon the Commissioner, is invalid. 2. It appears that up to 1952 water-tax was levied upon these premises at a particular rate. On 7-5-1952, a meter was installed by the Municipality, and on 8-7-1952, the Municipality submitted to the petitioners a bill in respect of water consumed in the premises and charging them at a particular rate. After that, various bills were submitted : the petitioners refused to pay these bills and went on paying water-tax.

Ultimately, on 10-4-1954, a notice was served upon the petitioners by the Assessor and Collector of Municipal Taxes, calling upon them to pay the sum due within a certain time and intimating to them that in default of payment a warrant of distress would be issued for the recovery of the amount. On receiving this notice, the petitioners approached this Court and contended by their petition that the threat held out by the Municipality to issue distress was without justification in law.

3. Now it is necessary to look at the scheme of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act in order to understand the contentions of the petitioners and also the grievance set out in their petition. Chapter VIII deals with municipal taxation and S.139 describes the taxes which can be imposed under the Act, and property taxes are among the taxes which can be imposed under the Act. Section 140 describes what property taxes are leviable and they are a water-tax, a halalkhor-tax and a general tax. Section 141 deals with the water-tax and water-tax can be levied in respect of premises where there is a private water-supply which is connected with municipal waterworks by means of communication pipes and it also applies to premises where water is available from municipal water-works and in respect of which the Commissioner has given public notice.

Now, S.141, which deals with the water-tax, is subject to the provisions of S.169 and that section gives the discretion to the Commissioner to charge for the water supplied to such premises by measurement at such rate as shall from lime to time be prescribed by the Standing Committee in this behalf. But this discretion conferred upon the Commissioner can only be exercised provided that the Standing Committee either generally or specially has directed that, instead of levying the water-tax in respect of any premises, water should be charged for according to measurement. Now it is S.169 that is challenged by the petitioners, and the challenge, broadly speaking is on three grounds. The first ground is as to the competence of the Legislature to enact this section; the second ground is that the section offends against Art.14 of the Constitution; and the third ground is that it constitutes delegation of legislative function by the Legislature to the Standing Committee or the Commissioner. We have to examine each one of these grounds which have been urged before us by Mr. Purshottam on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Turning to the first ground, the competence of the Legislature must clearly be looked at from the point of view of the Constitution Act in force when the Municipal Act of 1888 was passed. But both Mr. Purshottam and the Solicitor General on behalf of the Municipality have argued the points on the basis that the competence of the Legislature is the same as it is under the present Constitution. Now, turning to our present Constitution, Entry 5 in the State List is to the following effect :

"Local government, that is to say the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or vi