1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2001 M/s Deccan Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Limited & Ors. … Petitioners. Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondents. Mr. N.D. Buch i/b M/s N.N. Vaishnava & Co. for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. S.M. Modle for Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2009. P.C. 1 By this Petition, the Petitioners are claiming two reliefs, one is that the Respondent-Corporation should be restrained from recovering water taxes from the Petitioner- Society because the Respondent-Corporation did not supply water to the building of the Petitioners-Society till the year 2001 and the second relief claimed is that Respondent- Corporation be directed to give water connection to the building of the Petitioners-Society. It appears that the building 2 was constructed by the builder, the flats and shops were sold and in the year 1985-86 possession was handed over to the purchasers of the flats and shops without any occupation certificate and surprisingly, flat purchasers and shop purchasers without occupation certificates contrary to law occupied the building. The Corporation obviously, therefore did not supply any water to that building. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that as there was no water supply to the building till the year 2001, the Corporation could not claim water taxes from the Petitioners till the year 2001. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is totally devoid of any substance. Perusal of the provisions of section 147 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, the property tax can be levied by the Corporation on the buildings in Greater Bombay. Water tax is part of property tax. Section 141 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, in our opinion is relevant to decide the question involved in the Petition. It reads as under: “141. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 169, the water tax shall be levied only in respect of premises - 3 (a) to which a private water-supply is furnished from or which are connected by means of communication-pipes with, any municipal water-works; or (b) which are situated in a portion of Greater Bombay in which the Commissioner has given public notice that sufficient water is available from municipal water-works for furnishing a reasonable supply to all the premises in the said portion. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 169 the water benefit tax shall be levied in respect of all premises situated in Greater Bombay. 2 Perusal of section 141 of the said Act quoted above shows that water tax can be claimed by the Corporation, in to two situations, one, where water is actually supplied by the Corporation and two, where though water is not actually supplied a public notice is issued that sufficient water is available from municipal water-works for supplying it to the 4 building. In the present case, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, a clear statement has been made that a public notice as required under sub section 1 (b) of section 141 of the said Act has been issued. Therefore, in our opinion even in the absence of actual water supply from the Corporation, water tax can be levied by the Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. M/s Nagpal Printing Mills and Another reported in (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 466. 3 Perusal of the Judgment shows that the judgment is not relevant for deciding the controversy involved in this Petition, because before the Supreme Court the controversy was not about the water taxes but it was about water charges. Concept of ‘water tax’ and ‘water charges’ is totally different. 4 So far as the directions to the Corporation to give water connection to the building is concerned, though there is prayer made in the petition, that the Corporation be directed to give water connection to the building, there is no such averment in the petition. Petitioner made an application to the Corporation for supply of water and that application was kept 5 either pending or not decided by the Corporation. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, the Corporation has submitted that, the application dated 30th June, 2004 was submitted by the Members of the Petitioners-Society and thereafter water connection was granted on humanity ground under the relevant rules. Thus, it appears that when the petition was filed neither there was any averment made in the Petition that an application for water connection has been made nor actually there was any water supply made, because the application was made in the year 2004 and the Writ Petition was filed in the Court in the year 2001. In our opinion, therefore, no direction as claimed by the petitioner can be made. The entire petition is devoid of substance. The Petition therefore fails and rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)