Case: Jawala Ram &amp; Others Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

1. The 51 appellants all of whom belong to village Simla, Tehsil, Narwana, filed in the Pepsu High Court at Patiala a petition under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution for relief against an order made by the Divisional Canal Commissioner, Narwana for payment of certain water rates and Tawan. It appears that on the night of September 1, 1951, there was a cut on the left bank of Sirsa Branch Canal. Certain persons were prosecuted on a charge for having damaged the canal but they were acquitted. Thereafter, the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana, on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canal, Narwana made an order levying special charges against these appellants. On appeal the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana, ordered in partial modification of the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the levy of six times the crop rates on cultivated area and six times the charges on uncultivated area and single bulk rate on water slow of village Simla. This levy was made on the basis of his conclusion that the villagers of Simla were responsible for the cut and joined hands for the common good.2. The High Court dismissed the application by a short order stating that the points involved in this petition were fully covered by the decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Mukandi Ram v. Executive Engineer, LPA/FAO No. 58 of 1954 ; (AIR 1956 Pepsu 40) and that the counsel for the petitioners had therefore nothing to say in support of the petition and did not press it. Against this order of dismissal the present petition has been filed by special leave obtained from this Court.

Reasoning:
So under Art. 367 which provides that General Clauses Act 1897 shall apply for the interpretation of the Constitution the word "offence" in the several clauses of Art. 20 must be understood to convey the meaning given to it in Section 3(37) of the General Clauses Act. That section defines an "offence" to mean an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being inproviding for a charge to be made for use of water at rates that may be prescribed by rules the legislature is not prohibiting the use of water. The word "unauthorised use" in the section does not import any idea of prohibition. The intention of the law clearly is to obtain payment for water used; and the fact that the rates prescribed may be high cannot alter this position.10. We are therefore of opinion that the use of the water by the petitioners was not an "offence" and the order for levy of special rates for user thereof was not the imposition of a penalty for an offence, when the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer or the Canal Commissioner was dealing with the matter they had to decide whether these petitioners had used water in an unauthorised manner and if so at what rates they should be charged for such use. In doing this, they were not trying anybody for any offence; and the fact that special rates were imposed did not deprive these rates of their essential character of a charge for water used and did not convert them into any penalty for the commission of an