Pepsico India Holding Pvt.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant - PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 for manufacturing and distributing carbonated soft drinks, bottled drinking water and other food products. Appellant stated that it is one of the leading manufacturers of Carbonated Soft Drinks and bottled drinking water in the entire State of Maharashtra and a significant portion of the entire national demand for the appellant's product is met from the production made within the State of Maharashtra itself.

5. The appellant stated that respondent no. 2, acting through respondent no. 3 invited business undertakings to set up industrial units in the industrial areas to add impetus to industrial development in the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the appellant decided to set up its manufacturing plant in the State of Maharashtra at Paithan, Distt. Aurangabad and Roha, Dist. Raigad. In this case, however, we are concerned with the manufacturing plant of the appellant located at Roha.

6. The primary business of the appellant is to manufacture non-alcoholic beverages in its plant and for the manufacturing of the same, water is used as one of the raw materials.

7. The plant from where the appellant operates its unit at Roha, Maharashtra was earlier owned by another company by the name Voltas India Limited. The said company had entered into a Water Supply Agreement with respondent no. 3 for its facilities at Dhatav, Roha under the Water Supply Regulation Act, 1973. Page 3 of 36

9. Appellant purchased its plant at 100/1, A-Road, MIDC, Dhatav, Roha, Distt. Raigad from Voltas Limited, the original owners of the property. Voltas issued its no objection to transfer water connection in the name of the appellant. Since then, the respondent no. 3 has been issuing all the water bills in the name of the appellant.

10. Respondent no. 4 while acting upon a recommendation of the Finance Commission issued Government Resolution No. WSR 1001/(5/2001)/IM (P) dated September 12, 2001 increasing the water cess. The revision was made after drawing a classification differentiating three categories of consumers of water, namely:-

12. Consequently, the appellant was placed in the third category i.e. industry using water as raw material. On that basis, the appellant was directed to pay water cess, on increased rates. Subsequently, some industrial associations/organisations/ industrialists made representations to the State Government requesting it not to increase the water cess.

13. On October 24, 2001 the respondent no. 4 issued another Govt. Resolution Errata No. WSR 10001/ (5/2001)/IM (P). The Page 7 of 36 corrigendum changed the increased water cess from the new rates of Rs. 36.50 pcm to Rs. 40 pcm and made the same effective from September 1, 2001 with a clarification that while deciding/fixing water rates vide Government Resolution No. WSR 1001/(5/2001)/IM (P) dated September 12, 2001, some deficiencies were left out and the same are being removed by Errata dt. 24.10.2001 with the following resolution:

15. On 06.12.2001, respondent no. 2 issued a Circular No. G- 32/2001 informing the industrial organisations that the proposed increase in rates is due to the increase in water charges effected by respondent no. 4 and till the time respondent no. 4 does not withdraw the increase in water charges, the respondent no. 2 cannot reduce the water rates. It was further stated that representations received have been forwarded to the Government and therefore during the pendency of the said representations, the industrialists can pay the water bills at previous rates. On 13.08.2002, respondent no. 2 issued another Circular informing the pendency of representations before the Government, in which it was also stated that industrialists are allowed to pay the bills at the old rates and the same should be accepted and the balance amount should be shown as arrears.

In this view of the matter, no final decision was taken for the bills relating to the period from 01.11.2001 to 31.05.2003. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation an undertaking of the Maharashtra Government issued a Policy of water supply and made it effective from 1st June, 2003.

69,97,385/-. However, the recovery of the differential payment will be kept in abeyance till the issue of royalty payment for this period is resolved by the Irrigation Department. For arrears of this period appellant will have to give an undertaking on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/- regarding payment of water charges to this office.

3) For making differential payment of water bills as per revised rates for the period from 01/12/2002 to 30/04/2005 Page 17 of 36 amounting to Rs. 1,57,62,618/- appellant will be allowed six monthly equal instalment of Rs. 26,27,103/- each. The appellant was directed to pay the instalments failing which the amount would be charged along with interest to be calculated after six months.

Consequently, High Court declined to quash the notices and disposed of the petition with following directions: -

(ii) Respondent-Corporation may tender revised bills taking into consideration the distinction made above.

(iii)Respective petitioners may make suitable representations to the Respondents in respect of revision of water rates effective from 2002 onwards and on receipt of the representations, Respondents shall take appropriate decision on considering grievances raised by respective petitioners."

Page 24 of 36

Page 25 of 36

28. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and the materials on record, we proceed to dispose of this appeal by recording our reasons.

Page 28 of 36

Page 29 of 36

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. Page 32 of 36 Therefore, there is an intelligible differentia between these three categories so there is no discrimination.

42. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma] ..............................................J [Anil R. Dave] New Delhi, Page 35 of 36 September 12, 2011.

Page 36 of 36