Case: Pepsico India Holding Pvt.Ltd Vs. State Of Maharashtra

material are more than five time of the water tax rate of general industrial use, the financial burden of amount of difference is falling on the corporation. It was also intimated that with a view not to put financial burden on the corporation, decision of amending the rates of water supply under industrial area has been taken. The rates of water supply of such consumers who use water a raw material was revised by extending the rates by Rs. 34.60 per cm of water supply of respective industrial area issued vide circular no. G/7 dated 27.05.12003, the rates of water supply was amended from 01.11.2001. As to how water bills relating to the period from 01.11.2001 to 30.11.2002 should be recovered was also spelt out in the said notification. 36. Consequent thereto a letter was written to the appellant herein by Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, on 06.06.2005 intimating him that he is required to pay water bills for the period from 01.11.2001 to 30.11.2005 as per revised rates. 37. It is, therefore, established from all the aforesaid policy decisions of the Government for increasing the rates of water supply charges and also from the resolution of the Corporation taking a policy decision and also from the circulars issued for raising the water charges to 10 times that the decision was taken by the Corporation to increase the water charges based on the decision of the State Government to increase such rates of water charges. The Corporation supplies water to all needy persons be it residential houses, industrial units or to those industries where water is used as raw material on “no profit no loss basis”. Consequent upon revision of the rates by the Government at which rate the Corporation is to make payment to the Government, the Corporation has no other alternative but to revise the same and follow the increase rates as demanded by the State Government itself. The State Government has increased the water charges so far those industries where water is used as raw material to 10 times and the said rates were circulated by the Government to the Corporation in 2001 itself. The fact of such increase was intimated to all the persons to whom water was supplied by the Corporation including the appellant who was fully aware about the aforesaid increase of water charges from 2001.38. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that in the industries like that of the appellant, consumption of water is much more than all other types of industries as they use water as raw materials. Requirement and use of water in these industries is huge and therefore they are placed as one distinct category or class of their own. These industries stand apart from other industries and also differently situated from residential houses.Therefore, there is an intelligible differentia between these three categories so there is no discrimination. 39. However, a demand for payment of water charges at the aforesaid increased rates was for some time kept in abeyance in view of the several representations pending at the level of the Government from the aggrieved and affected persons including that of the appellant. But since the Government did not change its position and informed the Corporation to make payment at the revised rate which was increased in 2001 itself, the Corporation has no other alternative but to release the payment of water tax/bill at the increased rate demanded by the State Government. Although in 2003 a policy decision was taken to charge half the rate of the increased rate i.e. five times instead of ten times, at par with the industrial uses, but later on it was found that half the rate is not feasible and that what is being charged at the earlier point of time is required to be paid as Corporations financial loss was continuously increasing. That policy decision of 2003 was also a stop gap arrangement which is indicated from paragraph 6 thereof and the said decrease finally came to be amended in the notification of 2005. 40. The appellant is receiving the facility of water supply from the Corporation and is obliged to pay at such rates which are demanded by the Corporation as the same rate is being charged by the Government. The Corporation cannot be asked to suffer a loss for extensive user of water by the appellant using water as raw material for its business as it is discharging its public and welfare duty for supplying water to help and assist industries like the appellant. The stand of the appellant that the increased rate of water charges is being demanded from them on a retrospective basis is erroneous and fallacious and not proper because it is established from the record that the appellant had the knowledge about the aforesaid increase in 2001 itself when the Government issued the notification intimating such increase which fact is an admitted position. Therefore, there is no violation of clause 27 nor is there any question of giving any retrospective effect to the aforesaid increase. It was also submitted that appellant was not paying increased water charges as the matter was pending for final consideration in view of several pending representations. In the pleadings before us, the said fact is clearly proved by the statement of the appellant in the affidavit filed.41. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the coordinate Bench which was followed by the High Court in the present case. From the judgment it is distinctly indicated that while rejecting the contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant the High Court has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting such contentions. We find no infirmity in the said reasons. We however make it clear that a representation of the nature as suggested by the High Court could still be made by the appellant on all the grounds specifically mentioned therein and any other valid ground, which when filed would be disposed of expeditiously. 42. Consequently,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]37. It is, therefore, established from all the aforesaid policy decisions of the Government for increasing the rates of water supply charges and also from the resolution of the Corporation taking a policy decision and also from the circulars issued for raising the water charges to 10 times that the decision was taken by the Corporation to increase the water charges based on the decision of the State Government to increase such rates of water charges. The Corporation supplies water to all needy persons be it residential houses, industrial units or to those industries where water is used as raw material onprofit no lossConsequent upon revision of the rates by the Government at which rate the Corporation is to make payment to the Government, the Corporation has no other alternative but to revise the same and follow the increase rates as demanded by the State Government itself. The State Government has increased the water charges so far those industries where water is used as raw material to 10 times and the said rates were circulated by the Government to the Corporation in 2001 itself. The fact of such increase was intimated to all the persons to whom water was supplied by the Corporation including the appellant who was fully aware about the aforesaid increase of water charges from 2001.38. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that in the industries like that of the appellant, consumption of water is much more than all other types of industries as they use water as raw materials. Requirement and use of water in these industries is huge and therefore they are placed as one distinct category or class of their own. These industries stand apart from other industries and also differently situated from residential houses.Theappellant is receiving the facility of water supply from the Corporation and is obliged to pay at such rates which are demanded by the Corporation as the same rate is being charged by the Government. The Corporation cannot be asked to suffer a loss for extensive user of water by the appellant using water as raw material for its business as it is discharging its public and welfare duty for supplying water to help and assist industries like the appellant. The stand of the appellant that the increased rate of water charges is being demanded from them on a retrospective basis is erroneous and fallacious and not proper because it is established from the record that the appellant had the knowledge about the aforesaid increase in 2001 itself when the Government issued the notification intimating such increase which fact is an admitted position. Therefore, there is no violation of clause 27 nor is there any question of giving any retrospective effect to the aforesaid increase. It was also submitted that appellant was not paying increased water charges as the matter was pending for final consideration in view of several pending representations. In the pleadings before us, the said fact is clearly proved by the statement of the appellant in the affidavit filed.41. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the coordinate Bench which was followed by the High Court in the present case. From the judgment it is distinctly indicated that while rejecting the contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant the High Court has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting such contentions. We find no infirmity in the said reasons. We however make it clear that a representation of the nature as suggested by the High Court could still be made by the appellant on all the grounds specifically mentioned therein and any other valid ground, which when filed would be disposed of expeditiously.