t Petition Civil No 27860 of 1987 In Writ Petition Civil No 591 of 1987
In Writ Petition Civil No 591 of 1987
282 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioners
MK Banerjee Solicitor General AK Ganguli Ms A Subhashini P Parmeshwaran and B Parthasarthi for the Respondents
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R An application under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition No 591 of 1987 has been filed in this Court on behalf of 40 employees working in the Pension Paying office Pokhara in Nepal asking for a direction to the Union of India to make the services of the petitioners permanent and for further directions in the matter of payment of allowances and other material benefits as payable to similar employees under the Union Government
Notice was ordered on the application on 14th July 1987 and two weeks  time was allowed to the respondents for filing their counter affidavit
On 3rd August 1987 the court directed as follows Two weeks are allowed to the respondents for filing a counter affidavit
No further time will be allowed
One week thereafter is allowed for filing rejoiner
Put up this matter after three weeks
Meanwhile status quo as on today shall be maintained underlining is ours
On 7th August 1987 the Court made the following further order Issue notice returnable on August 14 1987
Mr B Parathasarathy accepts the notice for Union of India
Respondent is directed to file counter affidavit within one week from today
In the meanwhile petitioner No 9 will not be evicted from the quarter now occupied by him  Again on 14th August 1987 the Court further directed 283  
Petitioner No9 will be put back in possession of the government quarter if he has already been evicted   Ultimately on 11th September 1987 a three Judge Bench of this Court directed Petitioner No 9 will be reinstated in service and he will also have to be put in possession of his quarter forth with On the allegation that the directions of this Court in regard to petitioner No 9 were not implemented the present contempt proceeding has been initiated on behalf of the petitioners
Petitioners have alleged that with the filing of the writ petition the treatment provided to the petitioners by the establishment has undergone a change and those of the respondents who have local base in Nepal have started ill treating the petitioners
Several allegations have been made in support of the aforesaid plea
After notice was issued on this petition the different respondents have filed separate affidavits in return
The Indian Embassy for Nepal is located at Kathmandu
The Pension Paying office is maintained at some distance at a place called Pokhara
It is the common case of the parties that the necessity to maintain such an office is linked up with the historical fact that several inhabitants of Nepal worked in the Indian Army under the Gorkha Regiment
Mainly for their convenience this extra territorial establishment is being maintained
Some of the petitioners are India based while others are residents of Nepal
The establishment at Pokhara is under the direct control of an officer attached to the Indian Embassy styled as officer in Charge Indian Embassy Pension Paying office Pokhara
The Ambassador of the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu being the head of Indian Government establishments in Nepal has also supervisory jurisdiction over the Pay office
Respondent No S the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy is the link between the Embassy establishment at Kathmandu and the said Officer in Charge at Pokhara
Respondent No 3 is the Controller of Defence Accounts who inter alia oversees the disbursement of the pension of the ex Army personnel
Respondent No 1 is the Union of India through its Defence Secretary and respondent No 2 is the Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs
Admittedly both these respondents 284 are based in Delhi and have been impleaded being in overall charge of their establishments
Shri SK Bhatnagar Defence Secretary in his affidavit has taken the stand that he was not personally impleaded in the writ petition
Only when he was served with notice in the contempt matter he came to know about Court s directions and realised the full implication of the situation when he had a conference with his senior counsel on December 6 1987
Immediate action was taken to ensure appropriate compliance
Shri KPS Menon Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs has also taken the plea that he was not personally impleaded as a party in the writ petition and came to know about the Court s order at the same conference with senior counsel on December 6 1987 and ensured immediate compliance with Court s directions
Both these Secretaries to the Government have tendered unconditional apology
The third respondent is the Controller of Defence Accounts Central Command Meerut
He has taken the stand that petitioner No 9 Shri CN Dubey is not an employee of the establishment of the Controller of Defence Accounts at Meerut nor is he an employee under his administrative control
According to him he has no concern with any executive or administrative matter relating to the Pension Paying office at Pokhara
Respondent No 4 the Ambassador was not subjected to the contempt proceedings
Respondent No 5 is the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu and is in charge of the general administration of the military wing
Apart from offering unconditional apology he has indicated that Dubey has been restored to service and he has been provided with residential accommodation and for the period he was out of possession of the official residence rent by way of compensation has already been ordered to be paid to him
It is clear from the orders made by this Court and the facts appearing on the record that the responsibility for implementation of the Court s orders in regard to petitioner No 9 squarely rested with respondent No 6 the officer in Charge of the Pension Paying office
He in his affidavit has stated that Dubey was dispossessed from his residential accommodation on 14th August 1987 and by then the order of this Court dated 7th August 1987 had not been received by him
That accommodation was given to one Krishna Bahadur
Later Dubey has been restored to service given possession of a similar accommodation as the one from which he was displaced and with a view to giving effect to the spirit of the order of this Court the rent which Dubey had paid for private accommodation has been decided to 285 be borne out of Government account
His affidavit explains the delay in implementation thus A There has been delay in implementation of the orders of this Hon ble Court due to delay in communication administrative bottlenecks and for security reasons
It is further stated that we had no intention to flout or disobey the orders of this Hon ble Court but for the reasons beyond our control the same could not be implemented notwithstanding the fact that we had all intentions to implement the same in the right earnest
The orders have since been implemented the petitioner has since been reinstated and also given accommodation
The delay in implementing the same may kindly be condoned and we be excused for such delay for which we have tendered an unconditional apology at the outset of this affidavit
 There is some material which if probed into further might have established that respondent No 6 had the notice of the order of this Court before physical dispossession of Dubey was effected
As already noticed there is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by respondent No 6 or for the matter of that the local officers when the writ petition was filed in this Court
That backdrop as contended by counsel for the petitioners perhaps could be taken to supply the motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court
We have not considered it expedient to probe into the matter further on account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the respondents has tendered unqualified apology
We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation
The Court including the apex one is a part of the State and is a built in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law
For discharging that duty the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication
The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate objective and analytical
The Judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority nor do they look down upon others in the community
In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the 286 Rule of Law must accept the system render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance the rod of justice must descend down to punish
We hope and trust that everyone within the system realises this situation and does not unnecessarily get into a confrontation
The apologies tendered by the respondents are accepted and the contempt notice is discharged
Respondent No 6 is directed to pay to the petitioners the costs of the proceedings which are assessed at Rs2000 within one month


Summary:
 Section 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 empowers the Standing Committee to make rules to charge for the supply of water and by such rules to determine the water charges in lieu of water tax based on a measurement or estimated measurement of the quantity of water supplied
Section 276 provides for fixing of meters for measurement of water supplied and maintaining the instruments in proper order
Bye laws framed under section 461 in 1968 empowered the Commissioner to fix a quota
Rule IIIdi of the Water Charges and Sewerage and Waste Removal Rules framed in exercise of the powers given by sections 169 and 276 of the Act which became effective in 1976 provided for charging for the shortfall between the quota and the recorded consumption in respect of industries for which a quota has been fixed
The respondents were being charged for water upto June 1977 on the basis of their actual consumption
In July 1977 they were sought to be billed for the difference between the charges on the quota basis under the said rule and the actual consumption basis which was objected to by the respondents
The writ petition filed by them in the High Court was rejected by a single Judge
In appeal before the Division Bench it was contended that the Rule lIIdi of the Rules was ultra vires the rule making power of the Standing Committee of the Corporation being inconsistent with section 169 of the Act
The High Court held that section 169 empowers the Corporation to levy charge only in respect of the water that has in fact been supplied 274 275 to and consumed by the consumer and it is to be levied on the basis of measurement or estimated measurement and struck down the rule
Dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Municipal Corporation  HELD There being no methodology in Rule IlIdi of the Water Charges Rules for measuring the actual water supplied that rule is beyond the powers of the Corporation
The High Court was therefore right in striking it down
278H 279A The Corporation cannot estimate and charge on the basis of water it makes available for use by a consumer
The supply referred to in section 169 of the Act is a supply which is in fact supplied to the consumer and consumed by it
It is only that supply which can be measured
Where the measuring device has failed to record the correct consumption it might be estimated
But that must be on sound guidelines otherwise it would be arbitrary and mere ipse dixit of the authorities concerned
278D E The by laws made in 1968 empowering the Commissioner to fix a quota do not indicate any guidelines
That is bad and unwarranted
278E