1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5834 OF 2005 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents Mr Iqbal Chagla, Senior Counsel wth Mr R.I.Chagla with Mr R.V.Talaskar, for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP,for respondent no.1. Mr Kiran Gandhi i/b M/s Little & Co for respondent nos 2 and 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 2006 United Breweries Ltd... .. Petitioners Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp and ors .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.138 OF 2006 Associated Breweries & Distilleries Ltd ABDL) & anr .. Petitioners T 2 Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp and ors .. Respondents Mr E.P.Bharucha , Senior Counsel with Mr G.Bharucha, Mr Sachin Chandarana , Ms Priyanka V i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the petitioners. Mr Kiran Gandhi i/b M/s Little & co for respondent nos 1 and 2. Mr S.R.Nargolkar, AGP, for respondent no.3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1903 OF 2006 Zawar Sales Limited .. Petitioners Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp and anr .. Respondents Mr Rajesh Datar, for the petitioners. Mr Kiran Gandhi i/b M/s Little & co for respondent no1. Mr S.R.Nargolkar, AGP, for respondent no.2. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 04/11/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These petitions raise the very issues which were considered by this court in Writ Petition No.4263 of 2005 in the case of Waluj Industries Association and others Vs. State of 3 Maharashtra & others, with other petitions, which came to be disposed of by this court by order dated10.10.2008. According to counsel for the respondents, the issue is squarely covered in the present petitions and the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.4263 of 2005 and the other petitions. 3. On behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel submits that insofar as the issue pertaining to retrospective levy of water charges, the learned Division Bench did not take into consideration clause 27 of the agreement, though the same is quoted and noted in paragraph 12 and which would have the effect of the charges being prospective and not retrospective. In our opinion, considering that the Division Bench of this court, rejected the contention of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4263 of 2005 which has been dealt in paragraph 16, it may not be proper on our part to consider the said argument. It would be open to the petitioners herein, if they are so advised, to take such steps in law which they are entitled to. 4. It has also been pointed out that insofar as levy of charges are concerned, the learned Division Bench of this court has taken a view that insofar as water used as a raw-material the charges would be different than for water used for allied activities. The water charges shall be charged at nominal rates. 4 5. On behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel also pointed out in respect of other contentions covered by the Judgment of this court they propose to canvass arguments. In our opinion, considering judicial discipline, it may not be possible for us to consider those. It would be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions before appropriate forum to which they will be entitled to. 6. Considering the above, these petitions can be disposed of by issuing the following directions. (i) It will be open to the petitioners to submit documentary evidence before the respondents showing the water which they were using as a raw-material and the water which they were using for allied activities. The respondents thereafter to complete the entire exercise within 16 weeks from today . (ii)On the petitioners providing such information supported by documentary evidence, the respondents to charge the petitioners in terms of the directions issued by this court in writ petition no.4263 of 2005. (iii)Considering direction no.3 in paragraph 19 of the Judgment in Waluj Industries Association, it will be open to the petitioners to make suitable representation in respect of revision of water rates effected from 2002 onwards and 5 on receipt of the representation, the respondents shall take appropriate decision after considering the grievances raised by the respective petitioners. (iv)Rule made absolute accordingly in all the petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.)