The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for mutual consent to vary the terms of an existing agreement and the need for a clear modification or amendment to change the billing method for effluent treatment charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. At the request and by consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. Brief facts which emerges from the record before me are as under :

Appellant is a company incorporated under Companies Act having production unit in Butibori. The company is engaged in manufacturing of synthetic filament yarn and synthetic staple fibre. Respondent No.1- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited established by virtue of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act to secure the orderly establishment of industrial area and industrial estate of industries in the State of Maharashtra and to assist generally in the organization thereof and to provide facilities at the lowest costs to the industries. Respondent No.3 is Butibori Manufacturers Association, is an association of industries which have their manufactories in the MIDC industrial estate, Butibori, Nagpur representing around 300 manufacturers. The Common Effluent Treatment Plant (for the sake of brevity CETP), respondent No.2 were formed to help the small scale industries to get their effluent treated through such, at lower costs to reduce their capital. This effluent treatment plant was to be installed as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court Monetary Committee.

3. It is the case of the appellant that on 18/07/2007, there was tripartite agreement exchange between the parties for using common effluent treatment plant at Butibori. In this tripartite agreement respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were parties. MIDC communicated to Butibori CETP approving the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, 19/12/2007 tripartite agreement was executed. As per resolution dated 25/03/2008, it was decided that notice be issued to the concerned indigent industries who have not signed and appropriate action will be taken in respect of the same and appropriate charges will be collected. It is further contention that in view of the stringent norms by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), the appellant had undergone various changes and decision was taken by the Manager to recycle and reuse the water and also to make mechanism to reutilize treated effluent.

4. It is further contended by the appellant/plaintiff that in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the concept of polluters to pay was evolved. The CEPT is a state agency and established with the help of subsidy given by State Government as well as Central Government, therefore it should not act as profit making company. The plaintiff and defendant No.3/Association of Manufacturers along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement and in view of that agreement, the charges for treating the effluent by defendant No.2 was agreed to be paid on the basis of water intake. In the year 2014, plaintiff made report to amend this method of charging and the effluent treatment charges should be applied on the basis of actual discharge of effluent from the said industries. It is claimed by the plaintiff that defendant No.1/MIDC who is the controlling authority of other defendants has permitted the plaintiff to install the meter at the outlet of the plaintiff company.

5. It is contended by the appellant that in spite of resolution passed to that effect, the defendant No.2 CEPT is illegally charging effluent treatment charges on the plaintiff on the basis of water intake. Even illegally hike the charges. Therefore, plaintiff filed suit and sought declaration against the defendant No.2, that defendant No.2 cannot recover effluent treatment charges on the basis of water intake, but they should charge effluent charges on the basis of actual quantity of the effluent discharge by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant No.2 with prayer for direction to them to charge on the basis of actual quantity of effluent discharged by the plaintiff and not on the basis of water intake, and recovery of excess amount charged by the defendant No.2.

6. Lear