The court emphasized the principle of fairness in contractual agreements and the importance of upholding executed contracts.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein is a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the mining and exploration of oil and natural gas. The petitioner company has been functioning in Ankleshwar since the year 1960. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the action of the respondent authority whereby, the respondent authority has ordered to charge and collect water tax to the tune of Rs.1,62,31,757/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action initiated by the respondent authority, the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

“(a) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the letter dated 27th July, 2005 as well as the ensuing bill dated 9th September, 2005 and further to restrain the respondent’s in future from raising bills at revised rates after 9th September, 2005.

(b) Declare that the basis on which the respondent is seeking to revise the water charges payable by the petitioner are totally illegal and untenable;

(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the recovery pursuant to letter dated 27th July, 2005 as well as the ensuing bill dated 9th September, 2005, however, to the petitioner continuing to pay on the same basis as it had been paying till June, 2005.

(d) Be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads thus:

2.1 The petitioner required water supply for various purposes and in view thereof, entered into an agreement for a period of 10 years with the respondent – State Government on 25.02.2000. The said agreement is duly produced at Annexure – A. In view of the said agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner was liable to pay fixed water charges at the rate of 20 paise per 1000 ltrs. for drinking purpose and at the rate of Rs.2.50 per 1000 ltrs. for industrial use. The above referred amounts were payable respectively as fixed water charges (booking charged). The actual usage charges were also payable by the petitioner to the respondent at the rate of 30 paise per 1000 ltrs. for drinking water usage charges and at the rate of Rs.2.50 per 1000 ltrs. for industrial use. The aforesaid charges were levied on the basis of the Government Resolutions/circular dated 30.01.2001 and 24.09.2002 are annexed at Annexure - D, and E respectively, in which the rates mentioned as per the Government Resolution/Circular dated 30.01.2001 shall be made applicable retrospectively from 01.04.1997.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been billed on the aforesaid basis from the year 1997-98 till June, 2005 and the bills issued have been duly paid by the petitioner corporation. The copy of bill duly paid by the petitioner herein is produced at Annexure – F. The petitioner has produced a bill for June, 2005 which shows a credit of Rs.48,26,571/- in favour of the petitioner. On 27.07.2005, the petitioner received a communication along with a statement showing alleged re-assessment of the water charges used for drinking purposes towards fixed charges and normal water charges for the entire period from 1997-98 to 2005-06. Upon re-assessment, it has been claimed by the respondent authority that the petitioner corporation owes an amount of Rs.1,62,31,757/-, towards the respondent.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid communication dated 27.07.2005, the petitioner herein as approached this Court seeking the reliefs, as referred above.

3. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate with Mr. Anmol Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner corporation and Mr. Ayaan Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authority.

4. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petiti