IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.1445-A & 1649 of 2001 Reserved on : October 21, 2008 Date of decision : October 23, 2008 CWP No.1445-A of 2002 Parkash Walia and another …Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. CWP No.1649 of 2002 Babu Lal Sood and another …Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate (in both the petitions) For the Respondents : Ms Shilpa Sood, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No.1 to 3 (in both the petitions). Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5 (in CWP No.1445-A/2002). Mr. L.C. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5 (in CWP No.1649/2002). Surjit Singh, Judge These two writ petitions throw up common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. One petition, i.e. CWP No.1649 of 2002, has been filed on behalf of the civilian population of Dagshai Cantonment Area and the other, i.e. CWP No.1445-A of 2002, on behalf of the civilian population of Subathu Cantonment area. 2. Grievance made in the two petitions is that the Cantonment Boards of Dagshai and Subathu have unilaterally and arbitrarily increased the rates of water supply to the civilian population and the increase is so exorbitant that the civilian residents of the two Cantonment areas find it difficult to pay the same. Also, it is alleged that earlier the supply used to be made twice a day, for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, but of late the supply has been reduced only to once a day for two hours, because of which the people are not getting enough water to meet their daily requirements but in the case of defence personnel supply is still made twice a day. It is also alleged that the Cantonment Boards have imposed tax on water without any authority of law. 3. It is alleged that initially water supply used to be at 59 paise per 1000 gallons of water. Gradually the rates were increased, but the quantity of the supplied water was measured in gallons. In 2002 rates were increased many times, for example, upto March 2002 rates for Dagshai Cantonment area were Rs.4.60 per 1000 gallons of water, but from April 2002, the rates were raised to Rs.20.44 per 1000 …3… litres of water, meaning thereby that there was about 20 times increase in the water rates. Similarly, in the case of Subathu Cantonment area, upto March, 2002 rate was Rs.8.00 per 1000 gallons of water, but it was increased to Rs.21.84 per 1000 litres of water from April, 2002. 4. It is stated that the Cantonment Boards, impleaded as respondent No.4 in both the petitions, take the water in bulk from Military Engineering Service, whose Chief Engineer and Garrison Officer have been impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3, and further distribute the same to the civilian population and other consumers. It has been alleged that respondent No.4, i.e. the Cantonment Boards, charges the petitioners and other civilians for the supply of water at a rate higher than the rate at which the supply in bulk is made to it by Military Engineering Service. It has been pleaded that respondent No.4 cannot charge for the supply of water at a rate higher than the rate it gets supply of water from Military Engineering Service. 5. Cantonment Boards, in their written replies, have denied that they are charging the petitioners and the other civilians, for the supply of water, at rates higher than those at which they get water supply from Military Engineering Service. As regards reduction in number of times for daily supply of water from two to one, it is stated that supply to defence personnel and to civilian domestic consumers is made by Military Engineering Service, impleaded through its Chief Engineer as respondent No.3, directly and Cantonment Boards …4… have nothing to do with such supply. It is stated that the entire quantity of water made available to the Cantonment Boards by the Military Engineering Service is supplied to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, residing in the two Cantonment areas. Regarding taxation, it is alleged that respondent No.4 has the authority to do so, under Section 60 of the old Cantonment Act, 1924. 6. Respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., the Officers of the Military Engineering Service, have stated that they have been charging the Cantonment Boards at the rates notified by the Central Government, from time to time, and that at the relevant time, notification dated 7th December, 1998, Annexure R-3/5 in CWP No.1445-A of 2002, was in force. As per this notification, rate of supply of water to Cantonment Boards is All-in-cost rate of the preceding year. 7. This Court, vide order dated 9th August, 2004, constituted a Committee, comprising Commandant, 95 Infantry Brigade, Commandant, 14 G.T.C., Subathu, Deputy Comissioner, Solan, Edecutive Officers of the Cantonment Boards at Dagshai and Subathu, Superintending Engineer, I & PH, Solan, C.W.E., Shimla Hills, Jatogh and Garrison Engineer, Shimla Hills, Kasauli. The Deputy Commissioner was made the convener. The Committee was directed to make deliberations and to examine the relevant material and take into account the view of all concerned, including the residents of the two cantonment areas, and to submit a detailed comprehensive report to the Court. Deputy Commissioner …5… was made responsible for submission of report. Report was submitted by the Committee, vide letter dated 24th September, 2004. According to the report of this Committee All-in-cost rates of water in respect of Subathu and Dagshai Cantonment areas as follows: YEAR ALL-IN-COST RATES IN RESPECT OF SUBATHU ALL-IN-COST RATES IN RESPECT OF DAGSHAI 1996-97 Rs.18.61 per 1000 litres Rs.15.55 per 1000 litres 1997-98 Rs.17.74 per 1000 litres Rs.30.75 per 1000 litres 1998-99 Rs.22.25 per 1000 litres Rs.30.08 per 1000 litres 1999-2000 2000-2001 Combined all-in-cost calculated as sources of water supply is common as directed by their Head quarters. 2001-2002 Rs.22.64 per 1000 litres Rs.22.40 per 1000 litres 2002-2003 Rs.13.93 per 1000 litres Rs.14.92 per 1000 litres 8. According to the notification of the Central Government, Annexure R-3/5, rates for supply of water by Military Engineering Service to bulk consumers, including Cantonment Boards, are All-in-cost rates. According to the report of the aforesaid Committee, All-in-cost rates for the year 2001-2002 were Rs.22.64, in respect of Subathu Cantonment area and Rs.22.40, in respect of Dagshai Cantonment area. These were the rates applicable for the year 2002-2003, because the aforesaid notification, Annexure R-3/5, says that the rates for supply of water would be All-in- cost for the previous year. Admittedly, the writ petitioners or other civilians living in the Cantonment areas and getting supply of water through Cantonment Boards were charged at a lesser rate than the All-in-cost rates for the year 2001-2002. 9. It is also not in dispute that Cantonment Boards, Subathu and Dagshai, impleaded as respondent No.4 in both …6… the writ petitions, paid the Military Engineering Service at All- in-cost rates of Rs.22.64, in respect of Subathu and Rs.22.40, in respect of Daghshai. Grievance of the petitioners, as made out in the writ petitions, is that the Cantonment Boards, impleaded as respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions, are charging them at a rate higher than at which they are charged for the bulk supply by the Military Engineering Service. That is not correct. The petitioners have alleged that Cantonment Boards cannot charge them for supply of water at a rate higher than they are charged for bulk supply received by them from Military Engineering Service. And, the Cantonment Boards are not charging at rates higher than the ones at which they are getting the supplies, as demonstrated hereinabove. 10. Learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that Military Engineering Service had been charging the Cantonment Boards at rates higher than the ones at which they could have charged them, in accordance with the agreements executed by Boards with the Military Engineering Service, prior to the independence of the country. No such plea having been raised in the writ petitions, the submission merits straightway rejection. 11. It was also submitted that service personnel and defence civilians and another category of civilians were being charged at much lesser rates than the writ petitioners. To buttress the submission, learned counsel placed reliance on Annexure R-3/5, per which service personnel and defence civilians are being charged at the rate of Rs.4.00 per thousand …7… litres and civilian domestic consumers (other than defence civilians) are being charged at the rate of Rs.6.00 per thousand litres. These are the rates at which Military Engineering Service supplies water directly to the service personnel and defence civilians residing in Cantonments and the civilian domestic consumers and not the rates at which Cantonment Boards distribute water, after getting bulk supplies from Military Engineering Service. In the case of distribution of water by the Cantonment Boards, the rates are All-in-cost. According to Annexure R-3/5 itself, it is at this rate that Military Engineering Service makes bulk supply to the Cantonment Boards. It is the writ petitioners’ own case that the Cantonment Boards are entitled to charge them, at the rates at which they get supplies from the Military Engineering Service. 12. Regarding reduction in the number of times of daily supply of water from two to one, plea taken by the Cantonment Boards is that since the Military Engineering Service has reduced the supply of water to them from twice a day to once a day, they cannot make further supplies to the petitioners and the other similarly situated persons twice a day. 13. With regard to the grievance regarding levy of tax, no submission was made. Also, the Cantonment Boards have the same power to levy the tax as the Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils of the State of Himachal Pradesh, …8… under Section 60 of the old Cantonment Act, 1924, which was applicable at the relevant time. 14. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the two writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. October 23, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J