:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3166 OF 2007 The Municipal Council of Ratnagiri Through its Chief Officer ...Petitioners Versus Shri Vidyadhar Ganesh Shenai Lanjekar ....Respondents Mr.Sachindra B.Shety Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 7th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The respondent consumer had approached the appellate authority aggrieved by the bills raised pertaining to consumption of water charges. His case :2: :2: :2: was that the rate which has been sought to be applied, would not be applicable to him considering the requirement and the water-tap connection provided. The bill dated 25.7.2002 claiming water charges of Rs.520/- for the months May to June 2002 was subject matter of a Municipal Tax Appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri. After notices were issued and the petitioner council appearing, that Appeal was partly allowed on 2.6.2003 and the following order was passed : ". The Appeal is partly allowed. The decision of Respondent Municipal Council fixing water charge at the rate of Rs.520/- is hereby set aside. The matter s remanded back to the Ratnagiri Municipal Council for fresh consideration and determination of water charges as per the provision of Section 108 and 112 of Maharashtra Municipal Council water supply special water (tax) by laws, hence the respondent municipality to determine, again the water bill after following the procedure under Maharashtra Municipal Council Act. " 2. Subsequently, the Respondent Consumer once again approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing an Appeal in the year 2003 contending that the council has not abided by the earlier decision but purports to levy the water charges on the basis of a Resolution dated :3: :3: :3: 26.2.2002. The argument was that Section 108(f) of the Municipalities Act would not permit levying of any water tax for something which is not consumed but supplied. In such circumstances, the argument raised was that the minimum charges which are sought to be levied in the fresh bills are not payable. 3. The fresh Appeal was also heard after giving full opportunity to the present petitioner’s counsel. The appellate authority on 15.7.2004 passed an order and held that the water charges which are sought to be recovered should be at the rate of Rs.8/- for the consumption of 35,000 lts. The appellant respondent before me had deposited some charges under protest and the petitioner corporation was directed to adjust the same. The order in that behalf is dated 17.7.2004 in Municipal Appeal No. 4 of 2003. The District Judge at Ratnagiri has confirmed this order and dismissed the Revision Application of the present petitioner, that is how this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. :4: :4: :4: 4. The courts below have observed that in the case of the present respondent, the council has been unable to produce anything on record to show that it has abided by the earlier directions and has levied water charges at the rate stipulated therein. The finding of fact rendered in para-8 of the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri makes it clear that the council could not produce anything to show that it has reassessed the charges in accordance with law or has abided by the direction issued earlier by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In such circumstances, the order under challenge does not require any interference. The petitioner having failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Judge was right in dismissing the Revision Application. 4. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, the council is at liberty to assess the water charges hereafter in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and raise such bills pertaining thereto as are permissible in law. However, the council under the garb of this :5: :5: :5: liberty cannot reopen the assessment pertaining to earlier years. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. *************