1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 251 OF 2000 ... Marwah Industrial Premises Co.operative Society Ltd. And anr. ...Petitioners v/s. The Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.F.Devitre, Sr.Counsel with Mr.J.P.Sen i/b Federal & Rashmikant for the Petitioners. Ms.S.M.Modle for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 9th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. The Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.1862 of 1988 before this Court challenging the quota of water supply fixed by the Municipal Corporation and the demand 2 notice dated 21st August, 1987. This demand notice related to the period for the years 1985, 1986, 1987. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 6th May, 1998 dismissed the petition. However, granted liberty to the Petitioners to make representation to the Corporation. The Petitioners made representation to the Corporation for refixing the water quota from the year 1989 till date. The Corporation did not fix the quota, but demanded the amount and therefore, this petition was filed. There was an interim order passed by the court dated 8-1-2001 by which the Petitioners were directed to deposit the amount and the Corporation was directed to fix the water quota in accordance with law by taking into consideration the consumption for the last successive twelve months prior to the date of representation i.e. 16-11-1998. Pursuant to that direction 3 the Corporation by letter dated 25th September, 2000 has communicated that it has fixed the water quota for the period from 16-11-1998 to 31-1-2001. The water quota fixed by the Corporation for the aforesaid period was not under challenge. Therefore, so far as the period from 16-11-1998 to 31-1-2001 is concerned, the dispute is only on calculation of the tax payable. So far as the period subsequent to 31-1-2001 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has stated before us that there is no dispute between the Corporation and the Petitioners regarding water charges for that period. So far as the period from 1989 to 15-11-1998 is concerned, according to the Petitioners they are entitled to have the water quota refixed, because during that period their earlier writ petition No.1862 of 1988 was pending in this court. 4 2. In our opinion, the Petitioners were not justified in claiming refixation of the water quota for the period during which the writ petition was pending after their writ petition was dismissed by the Court. If the Petitioners had any grievance about the water quota fixed by the Corporation during the pendency of the petition, the Petitioners should have filed an independent petition challenging the fixation of the water quota or should have amended their pending petition. The Petitioners cannot be permitted to make a grievance about the revision of the water quota for the period during which the writ petition was pending, after dismissal of the writ petition. In our opinion, therefore, the representation made by the Petitioners for that purpose could not have been considered by the Corporation. In this view 5 of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i)Within a period of six weeks from today the Corporation shall communicate to the Petitioners the charges that may be still due from the Petitioners for the period from 1989 to 15-11-1998 in accordance with the decision of the Corporation for that period. (ii) So far as the period from 16-11-1998 to 31-1-2001 is concerned, the Corporation shall calculate the water charges as per the decision of the Corporation contained in the letter dated 25-9-2001 and communicate it to the Petitioners. While making this calculation the Corporation shall give 6 credit to the Petitioners for any amount that the Petitioners have deposited with the Corporation in that regard. There is some dispute between the parties whether the demand made by the Corporation also included the property tax. According to the Petitioners, they have paid the property tax. The Corporation shall while making the calculation look into that aspect also. (iii) After service of the calculations on the Petitioners, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge the calculation in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the calculations made by the Corporation. However, before making any challenge the Petitioners shall first deposit the amount demanded with the Corporation, without prejudice to their rights to challenge the demand. 7 (iv) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)