MOTIRAM KESHAVDAS Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL BOROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad, and it raises a question as to the validity of Rule 344 of the Ahmedabad Municipal Rules, which deals with charges for the supply of water in certain cases.

(2.) UNDER the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act of 1925, Section 58(j), the Municipality has power to make rules not inconsistent with the Act prescribing the taxes to be levied in the Municipal Borough. Section 73 empowers the Municipality to impose for the purposes of the Act the taxes therein mentioned, including, in Sub-clause (x), a general water-rate or a special water-rate or both for water supplied by the Municipality, which may be imposed in the form of a rate assessed on buildings and lands or in any other form, including that of charges for such supply, fixed in such mode or modes as shall be best adapted to the varying circumstances of any class of cases or of any individual case. That clause deals, as will be seen, only with the imposition of a general or special water-rate. Then Section 91 empowers the Municipality instead of imposing a water-rate, to fix, at rates not exceeding such as shall be specified in the rules in force under Section 58, charges for such supply according to the quantity used, as ascertained by measurement, or to arrange with any person to supply water on terms agreed.

(3.) MR. Dhruva has referred us to Amritfal Magmlal v. Municipality of Ahmedabadj1 which came before MR. Justice Rangnekar, and no doubt in that case the learned Judge did hold that Rule 344 was valid. I do not know what the case was with which he had to deal, but he held that a lump sum could be charged under the last part of Section 73 (x). As I have already said, in my opinion, that cannot be done unless the lump sum charged is a rate. and in this case it is not a rate.