The Corporation has the power to regulate the use of sub-soil water by granting and/or refusing and/or renewing licenses for deep tube-wells and can impose conditions with regard to the grant of such licenses.

( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed by the Corporation being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge on August 22, 2003 appearing at pages 186-197 of the paper book. By the said judgment and order the learned Single Judge quashed a resolution of the Mayor-in-Council of the Corporation by which the Corporation stipulated the conditions for grant and/or renewal of licence for deep tube-well to extract sub-soil water.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 claims to be the lessee of the premises No. 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta. Under the deed of lease granted by the owner of the premises in question the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 developed the said premises and let it out to various tenants including the income-tax authority and the State Bank of India. There had been huge arrear of corporation taxes payable in respect of the said presimes in question.

( 3 ) AS many as seven writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. l from time to time and by that process on one plea or the other they stalled the process of smooth recovery of the arrear taxes. One of the appeals came up before this Court being APO No. 344 of 2002 which was dismissed by us on July 13, 2006.

( 4 ) INITIALLY the learned Single Judge in a writ petition granted liberty to the writ petitioner/respondent No. l to pay off the arrear dues by monthly instalment of Rs. 2 lakhs. They continued to pay the said instalment for some time and thereafter they stopped paying. Ultimately the Corporation attached the rent payble to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 by the tenants of the said premises in question including the income-tax and the State bank of India. A sum of Rs. 3. 16 lakhs is being realised by the Corporation on account of arrear taxes by way of attachment of rent. Apart from those seven writ petitions a civil suit is also pending in this Court in its Original side wherein the respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the current corporation taxes. We are told by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. l that they are regularly paying the current taxes.

( 5 ) THE premises had at one point of time water connection through the corporation pipe line. It is contended before us that such water connection became defunct and the Corporation had not been able to supply adequate water to the said premises in question through such pipeline resulting in acute water scarcity. The respondent No. 1 at that juncture applied for sinking of deep tube-well to meet the need of the premises in question after obtaining necessary licence from the Corporation.

( 6 ) THE present writ petition pertains to an order of refusal of renewal of such licence by the Corporation. The Corporation applying the resolution dated February 11, 2003 appearing at pages 270-271 of the paper book refused renewal of licence and sealed the deep tube-well. The writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 immediately approached this Court and this Court by an interim order restored such water supply through deep tube-well. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge after completion of affidavits and the writ petition was ultimately allowed by His Lordship by the impugned judgment and order.

( 7 ) ON perusal of the judgement and order under appeal we find that the learned Single Judge observed that the resolution dated February 11, 2003 was not a resolution at all as the word "resolved" was conspicuously absent in the said document. His Lordship considered the affidavit of the Municipal secretary and came to a conclusion that since neither any member of the mayor-in-Council nor the Mayor himself had come forward to support such resolution, the affidavit of Municipal Secretary was not enough to support the same. His Lordship relied upon section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and came to a conclusion that such affidavit was no evidence at all to support the said solution.