IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. K. Yog and Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.
LUCKNOW GRIH SWAMI PARISHAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 8922 Of 1986 (M/b) with 5 other Writ Petitions
Decided On : 04/20/2000
The Court held that the imposition of water tax and sewerage charges at 12.5% and 13% of the annual value of the premises, respectively, under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, could not be enhanced to 14% and 4% respectively. The Court found that the limit prescribed under Section 173 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, was not to be stretched to be applicable to the imposition of tax under the 1975 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, various societies and residents of Lucknow, filed public interest petitions seeking issuance of writs against Jal Sansthan (called Sansthan) to maintain water supply by charging cost permissible under law and save the people of Lucknow from facing the crisis of drinking water paying alleged unreasonable charges imposed by the Sansthan.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned Notifications providing for general service charges in the absence of particular service being rendered is illegal and without authority. The Court also held that the service charge or automatic enhancement clause cannot be imposed and Jal Sansthan shall not realize it under the impugned Notification from the petitioners in the future, i.e., after the date of this judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the imposition of water tax and sewerage charges at 12.5% and 13% of the annual value of the premises, respectively, under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, could be enhanced to 14% and 4% respectively? 2. Whether the impugned Notifications providing for general service charges in the absence of particular service being rendered is illegal and without authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the limit prescribed under Section 173 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, was not to be stretched to be applicable to the imposition of tax under the 1975 Act. 2. The Court held that the impugned Notifications providing for general service charges in the absence of particular service being rendered is illegal and without authority.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions in part and directed the Jal Sansthan not to realize service charges or automatic enhancement clause from the petitioners in the future. The Court also directed the aggrieved consumers to challenge the water tariff by filing an appeal under Section 30 and/or Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975.
( 1 ) THESE six petitions give rise to the controversy pertaining to duties and obligation of local-Bodies (as part of local self Government) to ensure water-supply, within their area, for which said authorities are created under legislative enactment vis-a-vis rights, duties and obligations of the citizens who enjoy the basic amenity like water which is, like air, the core of life. Duty to supply water, in modem times, largely and invariably barring exceptions, rests with local self-Government. No local self-Government can, in the present day complex growth of society, perform its duties unless it has funds and provision to generate funds for its continued existence.
( 2 ) RESOLUTION No. 2312a, dated May 1, 1901-Government of India (F and C) dealt with the concept of taxation and its limits. It justifies Imposition of tax and mentions that limit may be exceeded in special cases, such as sinking funds for discharging duties, or to meet expenditure of project on a large scale. Resolution, however, notes that surplus available for investment should be taken into account for administrative measures for reduction of taxes.
( 3 ) ANOTHER Resolution No. 3463/xi-27i-E dated September 19. 1916, gives an Insight to the object and purpose of vesting local self Government with right to Impose taxes, octroi, surcharge, etc. By passage of time, experience showed that system of indirect taxes could be resorted. As the people got involved in the process, they became enlightened and realised additional measures have to be taken, i. e. . to resort to taxes subject to balance between two factors, namely, (i) payment for definite service rendered and (ii) to determine actual expenses of that burden to be borne by a local authority. Payment of tax for definite services covered taxes such as water tax, scavenging tax, tax on Vehicle, animals, property, etc.
( 4 ) THE aforementioned resolution dated September 19, 1916 mentions that in modem community, it cannot be left to each individual member to make voluntary provision for all essential things for communal life. Whether need is of supply of water or a system of drainage or education, it is incumbent on local authority to place some provision at the service of every member of the community whether he is able to make a proportionate contribution or not. Municipal activity cannot be left on any basis of purely economic exchange but it must be regarded as "a necessary contribution towards public at large, which must meet as a civic duty". Some basis is, therefore, necessary for the levy of such compulsory taxes. Resolution also noted the necessity of fairness in the actual work of assessment. Unless assessing authority and the process for assessing is scrupulously honest and its imposition is impartial, tax otherwise becomes as bad as the worst and municipal Government will Immediately show cracks-symbolising its failure.
( 5 ) THE fundamental principle of taxation, in such matters, should be limited to meet the requirements of actual expenditure and in special cases-to take care of expenditure like-sinking fund, for repayment of debt or projects on large scale. (Vide Government of India (F) and (C)Resolution No. 2312 dated May 1, 1905 see (1990) SCC 109. No fee to be levied if revenue earning is substantial. There should be no unjust enrichment particularly in the matter of public law, JT 1999 (5) SC 237 (Pr 40 to 43 ). The other Important factor is-that it is kept as low as possible and as nearly uniform as possible ; it does not bear unfairly upon any section/class. IMPORTANCE OF WATER
( 6 ) NO city, town, locality or area. not even as an exception, is there which is not affected by water crisis. Scarcity of water and its erratic supply in urban areas is a chronic problem. Situation becomes acute, sometimes unbearable, with mercury shooting up. Even the towns, surrounded by rivers or which are situated on the banks of rivers (like Allahabad, Kanpur, varanasf and Lucknow) are no exce
Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand
PIL Maintainable S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Kendriya Nagrik Samiti v. Jal Sansthan
Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay v. Nagpal Printing Mills and another
Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking and another v. State of Haryana and others
Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking and another v. State of Haryana and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.