1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4210 of 2011 Zawar Sales Limited ...Petitioners Versus M.I.D.C. & Another ...Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar for Petitioners. Mr. Prashant Chavan a/w. Suhas Patil i/b. Navdeep Vora & Associates for the Respondent No.1. Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 20th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In so far as the petitioner before us, it is common ground that it is engaged in business of packaging of drinking water. The packaging activity is dependent on the water supplied by the respondent Corporation. It is not the case of the petitioner that the water which is packed and sold in bottles is 2 procured from any other source. Thus, it is amply clear that the entire packaging activity is dependent on the basis of water supplied by the Corporation, which is used as raw material. It appears that no allied activity carried on except packaging of water, in so far as this petitioner is concerned. 2. The decision of the Division Bench of our High Court, in the case of Waluj Industries Association & Others vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.4263 of 2005, and the companion cases decided on 10th October, 2008 clearly expounds that if the water is used as raw material, the Corporation is entitled to charge the said user differently then the user of water for other activities. In the circumstances, it will be open for the Corporation to raise bills for the water supplied to the petitioner from time to time on the assumption that the entire quantity of water was consumed by the petitioner as raw material for the product manufactured by the petitioner, unless proved to the contrary. The petitioner, however, relies on the order dated 4th November, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.1903 of 2006 along with the companion writ petitions. In our opinion, the stand of the Corporation with regard to this petitioner hsa not been specifically 3 addressed in the said order. Instead, the said order generally observes that the petitioner(s) therein are free to submit documentary evidence before the Corporation indicating that the water consumed by them was for raw material and also for allied activities. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has already submitted such documentary evidence to the Corporation and without deciding the said representation, the Corporation has started the process of recovery against the petitioner. If the petitioner has filed such representation, there is no reason why the Corporation has kept that representation undecided so far. The explanation offered across the bar by the learned Counsel for the Corporation is that, the Corporation was waiting for the NEERI report regarding the component of water used as raw material in respect of specific industries. However, it is now fairly accepted that the NEERI report has since been received. If so, there is now no inhibition in deciding the representation of the concerned industries including that of the petitioner herein. 3. As aforesaid, in so far as this petitioner is concerned, water supplied by the Corporation is obviously used as raw material in packaging 4 and sale of water bottles. In the event the petitioner has submitted documentary evidence which suggests that some quantity of water is being consumed by the petitioner for allied activity, it is for the Corporation to assess that position. It is open to the Corporation to examine the claim of the petitioner by invoking the principle of dominant user and impose appropriate rates for water supplied by the Corporation. It is also open to the Corporation to consider any other appropriate measures that may be necessary to justify the claim of the Corporation. 4. Suffice it to observe that the Corporation shall decide the representation made by the petitioner within two weeks from today in accordance with law; and only thereafter proceed with the recovery process against the petitioner. 5. We would also directed the Corporation to decide all other pending representations of other industries, if any, within reasonable time, in any case, not later than four weeks from today, on the basis of observations of the NEERI report, since the same has now been made available. This direction is being issued to obviate further spate of 5 petitions to be filed by other industries against the Corporation. 6. Petition disposed of in above terms. 7. The petition be listed on 24th August, 2011 under caption “Directions” to report compliance. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)