R. S. A. No. 4463 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4463 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 05, 2010 M/s Indcon Tanks & Vessels (P) Ltd., Fraidabad .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff M/s Indcon Tanks & Vessels Private Limited has filed the instant second appeal. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that it is carrying on manufacturing activities in Faridabad . The plaintiff installed submersible pump of 1½'' dia in its premises at Faridabad on 12.09.1999 for drinking and domestic purposes of about 30-40 employees of the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied for registration of the said pump with Central Ground Water Authority vide letter dated 10.03.2000. The plaintiff also intimated R. S. A. No. 4463 of 2009 2 defendant no.2, who is Joint Commissioner of defendant no.1 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, about the installation of the pump and also submitted all relevant documents for regularization of the pump vide letter dated 31.03.2000. Defendant no.2 sent impugned notice dated 10.05.2001 demanding composition fee for the operation of the pump @ Rs.1920/- per month from the year 1991 to 2000. The said demand notice has been challenged in the suit on various grounds. Defendants controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff has installed submersible pump of 2'' dia and the same was installed in the year 1991. The defendants have, therefore, rightly demanded the amount of Rs.2,32,400/- from the plaintiff @ Rs.1920/- per month from the year 1991 to 2000. The demand notice is legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but at the same time, ordered that the impugned demand notice is legal and valid, although the charges shall be calculated from 12.09.1999 onwards being the date of installation of the pump. The defendants were accordingly held entitled to recover user charges from the plaintiff calculated @ Rs.1920/- per month from 12.09.1999. In first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009, modified the judgment and decree of the trial court and R. S. A. No. 4463 of 2009 3 decreed the plaintiff's suit partly holding the demand of defendants for user charges prior to 12.09.1999 to be not legal. In substance, no further relief was granted by the lower appellate court except the relief granted by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that dia of the plaintiff's pump is 1½'' and therefore, defendants are not entitled to claim user charges on the basis of pump of 2'' dia. The contention cannot be accepted. There is practically no evidence to depict that dia of plaintiff's pump is 1½'' . The plaintiff examined an official of defendant no.1, who obviously could not state about the dia of plaintiff's pump. Plaintiff's Works Manager Devender Singh Bisht appeared as PW-2. However, he also had no personal knowledge of the dia of plaintiff's pump. Consequently, there is practically no evidence to prove the aforesaid plea of the plaintiff. On the contrary, there is concurrent finding by the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant on this aspect. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that plaintiff is using water of the pump only for the purpose of drinking and other R. S. A. No. 4463 of 2009 4 domestic needs of its employees and not for sale or commercial purpose. However, this contention does not help the plaintiff-appellant because defendants are demanding user charges for the pump meant for domestic or industrial purposes and when water is not to be sold or used for commercial purposes. In this context of factual plea raised by the plaintiff appellant, it has to be noticed that defendants are demanding the user charges on the basis of said factual plea only and not on the basis of commercial user of the pump. On the other hand, charges being demanded by the defendants are meant for industrial and domestic user of the pump. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. October 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE