A Municipality has a statutory liability to provide sufficient water for domestic use, but it is not liable for interruptions or diminution of water supply due to occurrences beyond its control.

( 1 ) THIS application raises a point of public importance namely the right of a rate payer in a municipality to get a sufficient amount of filtered water for his domestic purposes. The facts are shortly as follows. The petitioners, who are ten in number, are all residents of Baranagar, in the district of 24-Parganas. They are all rate payers of the Baranagar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the 'municipality') and are owners of residential houses, premises and holdings within the precincts of the said Municipality. The Commissioners of the Municipality have imposed a water-rate and the petitioners pay water-rates at the rate of 7 per cent. of the annual valuations of their holdings. The petitioners allege that in spite of the statutory duty on the part of the Municipality to provide them with an adequate supply of filtered water for domestic purposes, the supply is miserably insufficient, and is dwindling down progressively, until they cannot get even a few gallons of filtered water per day. It is apprehended that such shortage would lead to the breaking out of epidemic diseases in the locality. On the 8th and 20th April, 1953 and 25th May, 1953, the petitioner Manindra Nath Pal wrote letters to the Municipality complaining of shortage in the supply of filtered water and claiming compensation. On 5-6-1953, the respondent 2 replied, expressing the regret of the Commissioners for the inconvenience caused, due to shortage of supply and hoping that the position had since improved. The claim for compensation was however repudiated. On 30-7-1954, a pleader's letter was served upon the Municipality by the petitioners, complaining of the insufficiency of the supply of filtered wafer and threatening legal proceedings if the supply was not improved. On 22-12-1954 a notice was issued by the Chairman to the effect that an officer of the Municipality will visit the different premises on 25-12-1954 for measuring the position of water supply. It was requested that the necessary facilities should be accorded to the inspector. Petitioners 1, 8 and 10, refused to accept notice. Petitioner 5 refused inspection of the water installation. Petitioner 1 in his affidavit-in-reply says that neither he, nor the petitioners 8 and 10 refused to accept notice but that they objected to the date of inspection. This is not supported by the petitioners 8 and 10 and I regret I cannot accept it. There is no objection on record so far as they are concerned. On the other hand, petitioner 3 objected to the date, saying that 26th December would suit him. Accordingly, inspection in his premises was held on the 26th. The result is that the petitioners 1, 5, 8 and 10, have not produced sufficient evidence before me to establish that they are not being supplied with sufficient amount of filtered water. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that on 4-2-1954, one Pratap Chandra Ray, a licensed plumber, went to the houses of the petitioners and measured the flow of filtered water. This- was however not done upon notice to the Municipality and I am unable to accept the correctness of the measurement. So far as the remaining petitioners are concerned, the following chart gives the position:

Petitioner No. Quantity of water to which the petitioner is entitled 2 290 284 230 3 160 420 120 4 320 630 270 6 180 1182 160 7 150 No supply during normal supply hours, supply available in extra supply hours. 9 170 840 150 Quantity flowing as per inspection by officer of Municipality No supply Quantity as found by P. C. Ray.

It will be observed that only petitioners Nos. 2 and 7 are getting less than the admitted amount to which they are entitled to. On the other hand, the petitioners Nos. 6 and 9, are getting vastly more than they are entitled to. The case of petitioner No. 7 however stands on a special footing. When she applied for connection of water to her house, it was found that there was No. G. 1 main in front of her house. She