IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.80 OF 2008 Chamber of Small Industry Association ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ALONGWITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.96 OF 2008 Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Ms. Shilpa Linge for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mas. J.S. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: The petitioner questions the legality and correctness of the increase in water charges as shown in Exhibit `A' to the Public Interest Litigation No.80 of 2008. The contention raised before us is that under section 63 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, the Corporation has the power to frame regulations/rules which are to be framed with the approval of the State Government but no such regulations have been framed and in absence thereof, enhancement of water charges is without authority of law. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be directed to pay the increased water charges. 2. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that section 17 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 fully empowers the Corporation to levy the fee or service charges in relation to expenses of maintenance of different kinds stated in the provisions as well as the water supply made by the Corporation. It is further contended and in fact, is part of the writ petition itself in Exhibit `A' that the Corporation has increased the charges as it takes water from the Department of Irrigation of the State of Maharashtra which has increased the charges. Increase of the charges by the Department of the State Government in turn has been passed on by the Corporation to the consumers and it is well within their power and authority under the provisions of the Act. 3. We find merits in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. Moreover, there is no challenge to the fixing of the tariff. It is only for enhancing in the rates which is questioned in the present writ petition. The judicial review in relation to the tariff has a very limited scope and the explanation rendered by the respondents before the court is in consonance with the statutory provisions with reference to section 17 of the Act and we see no reason to interfere. Both the Public Interest Litigations are dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.