Back
2011 Supreme(All) 3356
[2012(3) ADJ 156 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND K.N. PANDEY, JJ.
SUNEEL BAJPAI (Smt.) AND ANOTHER …..Petitioners
Versus
ALLAHABAD JAL SANSTHAN AND ANOTHER ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3033, 1950 of 2002, 135 of 2005 and 495 of 2006, decided on 16th December, 2011)
Dr. Ravi Kant, K.P. Bajpai and C.K. Parekh for the Petitioners; R.M. Saggi and C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975—Sections 15 (2) (vi), 15(2) (viii), 44, 49, 52(1), 52(2), 52(3), 59(1), 59(2), 61, 63, 66 and 69—Water Supply and Sewerage Taxes—Scheme regarding Water Supply and Sewerage—Elaborated—Section 25(2) (vi) provides for water supply and sewerage service and collection of taxes and charges—Jal Nigam has been given powers for imposing taxes on water supply, sewerage and its disposal—In the instant case, petitioners have not made averments with regard to annual value of their buildings and increase thereof and consequent increase in water tax—Levy of water tax and its collection for increasing infrastructure is also not under challenge—Petitioners have challenged increase in water tax through notifications dated 19.11.1994 and 19.6.1999—High Court found that Jal Nigam can levy service charge on supply of water—It was also found that petitioners' grievance regarding increase in water tax has been substantially mitiagated through notification of 19.6.1999 and thereafter by Government Order dated 18th July, 2006—High Court, as such, found nothing illegal in action of increasing water tax—Because, it is duty of Jal Nigam to provide clean water and for fulflling this duty, it needs sufficient funds for maintaining infrastructure—Price of any commodity has to be commensurate with costs incurred and this cost has to be born by general public as consumers. [Paras 19, 21, 22, 25 to 27, 29 and 31 to 33]
By the Court.—We have heard Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.P. Bajpai and Shri C.K. Parekh for the petitioners. Shri R.M. Saggi appears for the Allahabad Jal Sansthan, Allahabad.
2. The petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 3033 of 2002 are residents of Preetam Nagar Colony, Allahabad. They have challenged the notifications dated 19.11.1994 and 19.6.1999 and the consequent increase in water tax for the year 2000-01 to 2008-09. They have also prayed for writ of mandamus directing the Allahabad Jal Sansthan-respondent No. 1, to realise water tax, water charge, sewer tax, sewer charge and service charge, at the rates notified prior to the impugned notification dated 19.9.1999 and to issue fresh bills, deducting surcharge added from time to time at the end of each financial year.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2002 is resident of House No. 964/198, Sohbatiya Bag, Allahabad. He has also prayed for quashing the notification dated 19.11.1994 and 19.6.1999, increasing the water tax, the notice of demand dated 26.11.2001 and other consequential reliefs.
4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2006 are residents of Govind Nagar Colony, Karbala, G.T. Road, Allahabad. They have prayed for quashing Clause-9 of the notification dated 19.6.1999, and the consequent bills dated 1.10.2005, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realise service charges/ supervision charges from the petitioner. They have also prayed for directions to the respondents not to increase water charges, sewer charges and service charges on the basis of notification dated 19.6.1999.
5. The Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2002 was allowed by this Court on 19.3.2007, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Sinha v. Allahabad Jal Sansthan, Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2002, in which relying upon the judgments in Lucknow Grih Swami Parishad v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (3) AWC 2139 (LB) (DB), the increased demand of water tax was quashed. The Court held that the automatic increase at the rate of 15% in the water tax vide Notifications dated 19.11.1994 and 19.6.1999, merely on the ipse dixit of the authority, could not have been determined on application of mind. The increase was illegal and thus petitioners could not be subjected to demand of water tax/ water charges at the enhanced rate pursuant to the said Government Order. The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the respondents were directed not to demand sewerage tax/ sewerage charges from the petitioner as there was no sewer line in the locality, within the radius of 100 meters from the house of the petitioner, and thus in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 52 (c) of the Act, no sewer charge could be levied. The Court had also quashed the demand of enhanced water tax/ water charges pursuant to the aforesaid notifications. The Writ Petition No. 3033 of 2002, Smt. Suneel Bajpai and another v. Allahabad Jal Sansthan and another, was also allowed on 16.4.2007 following the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2002.
6. The Allahabad Jal Sansthan through its General Manager v. Smt. Suneet Bajpai and others, filed SLP (C) No. 23727 of 2007 in which after grant of leave the SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5010 of 2008, and was allowed. The matter was remanded with following observations :
“Leave granted.
In the present appeals the High Court has set aside the water charges fixed under the impugned Notification on the ground that they are arbitrary. No reasons have been given in this regard.
For the aforestated reasons we set aside the impugned judgments and remit the matters to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. We request the High Court also to decide the nature of levy of water charges under the provisions of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975.
The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions have o
