The imposition of water tax by the Municipal Board was legitimate under statutory authority and did not violate constitutional rights.

1. The Municipal Board of Rampur decided to impose water tax on the annual value of lands and buildings within the limit of the municipality as provided in S.128(1)(x) of the U.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After framing necessary proposals and rules, a notification dated 23rd March, 1957 was issued imposing water tax from 1st April, 1957. The tax was fixed at the rate of 10 per cent of the annual value of the lands and buildings. The petitioner, Raza Buland Sugar Company limited, received notices from the Municipal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for payment of Rs.37,789-92 np. as water tax assessed in respect of lands and buildings of the petitioner for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for the issue or a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices of demand and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board not to recover from the petitioner any water tax on the basis of those notices of demand on the ground that the tax is illegal and the Board had not jurisdiction to impose it.

3. The petitioner's attack on the validity of the water tax in question is principally three - pronged. The first contention of the petitioner is that it was beyond the competence of the Board to levy this tax. Another contention is that by exempting the main residential palace of His Highness the Nawab of. Rampiir from water tax, the Board has discriminated against the petitioner. The imposition of the tax is, therefore, hit by the provisions of Art.14 of the Constitution. The third contention of the petitioner is that publication of the proposal and the rules regarding the imposition of the tax was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and thus the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of raising objections either to the proposal for imposition of tax or to the draft rules framed by the Board.

4. In addition to these main contentions the petitioner has also attacked the imposition of the water tax on two subsidiary grounds. One of them is that the alleged water tax is not a tax and in effect amounts to fee for the supply of water. The petitioner's buildings have their own separate adequate arrangement for the supply of water from the tube - wells constructed by the petitioner at great expense and the petitioner's factory does not need water from the Water Works of the Board. The other ground is that the Board has by rules fixed a limit of 600ft. for purposes of charging water tax under S.129(a). The main buddings of the Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited are outside the radius of 600ft. from a standpipe where water is made available to the public, and as such the petitioner is not liable to pay water tax.

5. 'Tax' means burden of charge imposed by the legislative power of a State on person or property to raise money for public purposes. The expression 'fee' connotes recompense for services rendered. There is an element of quid pro quo in the case of fee. It is not so in the case of a tax. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that cl.(b) of S.129 provides that water tax is to be imposed solely with the object of defraying the expenses connected with construction, maintenance, extension or improvement of municipal water works and that all moneys derived therefrom shall be expended on the aforesaid object. He argued that the fact that the money raised from water tax is to be spent only on the supply of water, introduces an element of quid pro quo. The argument does not appear to be tenable. S.129(B) mentions the ob