Special Leave Petition C No 13154 of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 1691987 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 425 of 1981 
RP Bhatt and DN Mishra for the Petitioner
Shri Narain and Mrs M Karanjawala for the Respondents
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J This petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated September 16 1987
The respondents were in the business of dyeing and printing at Industrial Estate Kandivali Bombay
They had originally an 12 inch water connection in their premises
In 1971 they had applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a larger 276 water connection
In 1975 they were given an 112 inch connection
It appears that on 24th September 1975 according to the Corporation it fixed a water quota for the respondents in the figure of 2718000 litres per month
This was however disputed by the respondents
But the High Court proceeded upon the basis that this was the water quota fixed for them
Water Charges and Sewerage and Waste Removal Rules of the Greater Bombay became effective from 1st April 1976
These Rules were framed in exercise of the powers given by sections 169 and 276 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 hereinafter called the Act 
Rule IIIdi provides as follows di In case of industries for which a quota of water has been fixed if the recorded or computed consumption falls short of 910th of the quota of water for any month a consumption equal to 910th of the quota of water shall be charged
 It appears upto June 1977 water charge bills were sent to the respondents on the basis of their actual consumption
In July 1977 the respondents received supplementary bills for the difference between the charge on the quota basis under the said rule and the actual consumption basis
This was objected to by the respondents
The respondents contended that though they had kept their taps open for the full 24 hours of the day water was not available to make up anywhere near the quantity of the quota
The respondents asserted that the Corporation had agreed to verify this
The Corporation threatened to cut off the respondents  water supply
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay to restrain the Corporation from doing so
The learned Single Judge of the High Court found no substance in the case of the respondents
Rule nisi was therefore discharged
The respondents went up in appeal before the Division Bench
It was contended that the said rule was ultra vires the rule making power of the Standing Committee of the Corporation being inconsistent with section 169 of the Act
It was further urged that the Corporation was in the meanwhile not justified in charging on the basis of the quota because it was in no position to supply the quantity of water fixed
It was also urged that the said rule did not provide any guideline in respect of the industries to which it was to be applied and as to how the quota was to be fixed
Section 169 of the Act provides as follows 277 1691 Notwithstanding anything contained in section A 128 the Standing Committee shall from time to time make such rules as shall be necessary for supply of water and for charging for the supply of water and for any fittings fixtures or services rendered by the Corporation under Chapter X and shall by such rules determine i X X X ii a water charge in lieu of a water tax based on a measurement of estimated measurement of the quantity of water supplied 
 Sections 276 and 277 provide as follows 2761 Where water is supplied by measurement the Commissioner may either provide a meter and charge the consumer for the same such rent as shall from time to time be prescribed in this behalf by the standing committee or may permit the consumer to provide a meter of his own of such size material and description as the Commissioner shall approve for this purpose Provided that if such consumer is an occupier of any premises he shall not be provided with a meter or permitted to provide himself with a meter of his own unless he complies with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Commissioner
2 The Commissioner shall at all times keep all meters and other instruments for measuring water let by him for hire to any person in proper order for correctly registering the supply of water and in default of his so doing such person shall not be liable to pay rent for the same during such time as such default continues
Where water is supplied by measurement the register of the meter or other instrument for measuring water shall be prima facie evidence of the quantity consumed
 It may be mentioned that section 461 of the Act empowers the Corporation to make byelaws not inconsistent with the Act for regulating all matters and things connected with the supply and use of 278 water
It further appears that by an amendment in 1968 byelaws framed under section 461a and b empower regulating all matters and things connected with the supply and use of water and is defined to mean maximum quantity of water any consumer or class of consumers is entitled to receive
It is to be fixed by the Municipal Corporation by order on the basis of an assessment of the requirement
It further stipulates that no consumer in respect of whom an order has been made may consume water in excess of such quantity
The High Court held that the rule was framed in terms in exercise of the powers given by sections 169 and 276
Section 169 specifically empowers the Standing Committee to make rules to charge for the supply of water and by such rules to determine the water charges based on a measurement or estimated measurement of the quantity of water supplied
 The High Court has emphasised the past tense of the word supply which is important and refers to something already done
We are in agreement with the High Court s view that it empowers the Corporation to levy charge only in respect of water that has in fact been supplied to and consumed by the consumer and it is to be levied on the basis of measurement or estimated measurement
This has been conferred by the terms of Section 277 of the Act
It is only that supply which can be measured
Where the measuring device has failed to record the correct consumption it may be estimated
But that must be on sound guidelines otherwise it would be arbitrary and mere ipse dixit of the authorities concerned
The bye laws made in 1968 here empower the Commissioner to fix a quota
But no guideline is indicated
That is bad and unwarranted
It appears that 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
We are in agreement with the High Court that where the measuring device has failed to record the correct consumption it may be estimated
The circumstances m which the measuring device could be said to have failed the modes of estimation in such circumstances are provided for by rule lIIa b and c of the Water Charges Rules
The Corporation can not estimate and charge on the basis of water it makes available for use by a consumer
There is no warrant for such a construction
Therefore there being no methodology in Rule III di of the Water Charges Rules for measuring the actual water supply that rule is beyond the powers of the Corporation
The High Court was there 279 fore right in striking down the Rule IIIdi of the said Rules as effective from 1st April 1976
If there is no supply the question of measurement cannot arise by estimate or otherwise
There is no ground to interfere
The petition therefore fails and is dismissed
PSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
 The question as to whether Decoplast manufactured by the appellant is plastic emulsion paint or not had been determined in the affirmative by the Revenue and revision application before the Government of India was rejected
Thereafter the appellant moved the Bombay High Court which directed the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal to hear the petition and to decide the same as an appeal before it
On behalf of the appellant elaborate evidence had been adduced before the Tribunal
Reference was made to the specifications of plastic emulsion paint and the definition as given by ISI
The Tribunal addressed itself to the question whether Decoplast could be considered as plastic emulsion paint having regard to i its composition ii its characteristics iii its uses and iv its reputation in trade parlance and held that Decoplast is a plastic emulsion paint
Aggrieved by the order the appellant appealed under Section 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 to this Court which
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 11 The commercial meaning has to be given to the expressions in Tariff items
Where definition of a word has not been given it 340 must be construed in its popular sense
Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it
343G 12 In the instant case the use of these two items and their composition when analysed revealed that in essence they performed the same functions as plastic emulsion paint does though there was some difference in them
The affidavits of traders and others were examined by the Tribunal
The Revenue did not adduce evidence in rebuttal
Therefore in view of the composition characteristics uses and how it is known in the trade the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Decoplast was plastic emulsion paint
This is a finding of fact arrived at on relevant and valid materials
There was no misdirection in law
344C E 2
In interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Act or Sales Tax Act resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to the popular meaning that is to say the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them
343H 344A B Cl T Andhra Pradesh vs Ms Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad and Indo International Industries vs Commissioner of Sales Tax UP  referred to
King vs Planter s Co 1951 CLR exhibit 122 and Two Hundred Chests of Tea  18246 LEd 128 referred to