ACC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against the constitutional validity of Rule 71-A and Rule 73(1) of the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules, 1974'); besides the prayer to set aside the relevant circulars issued by the State, fixing the extent of liability for satisfaction of water charges and such other incidental proceedings. It is contended that the demand for levy of water charges in respect of the use of water by the Petitioner, which gets collected on rains in the natural course, in the worked out pits left out in the leased area after mining, is devoid of any power or authority and bad in all respects.

(2.) This is the second round of litigation. The Petitioner, who is a Cement Manufacturing Company, has obtained a Mining Lease from the Respondent-State, terms and conditions of which have been put in writing as borne by Annexure-P/5 dated 12.06.1963. The tenure of the lease, originally fixed for 'twenty' years, was being extended from time to time and the mining operation still continues. It is stated that, by the passage of time, on extraction of mineral from the leased area, rainwater gets collected in the mined-out pits and the said water is being used by the Petitioner for various activities including in connection with the manufacturing process and such other purposes. It is stated that there was no objection from any corner in this regard for nearly five decades.

(3.) The hiccup started when the 5th Respondent, Executive Engineer of the Water Resources Division of the State wrote to the General Manager of the Industries Department of the State on 06.02.2013 that the Petitioner- Company was extracting water quite illegally from the mined-out pits in the leased land and was liable to pay water charges. It was pursuant to the further steps, that Annexure-P/4 demand notice was issued on 06.02.2013, demanding to satisfy a total sum of Rs.1,89,12,368/- towards water charges in respect of the manufacturing activities and a further sum of Rs.1,55,39,922/- in respect of the Captive Power Plant situated within the premises, which was set-up to help the manufacturing process. On receipt of the said demand notice, the Petitioner-Company informed the 5th Respondent that the Petitioner was not liable to pay any such charges and required the 5th Respondent to let the Petitioner know as to power and authority under which the water charge was sought to be realized. The 5th Respondent furnished copies of two Notifications dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure-P/2) and 31.05.2010 (Annexure-P/3) issued under the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Act, 1931 (for short, 'the Irrigation Act, 1931') (with reference to Sections 37 and 40 of the Irrigation Act, 1931) and asserted that the Petitioner-Company was bound to pay the water charges.