AKSHAR MUDRAK INDUSTRIAL UNITS SAHAKARI PREMISES LIMITED Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the additional demand raised by the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC) on account of water charges for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-6-1989 by way of supplementary bills.

(2.) THE petitioner is an industrial Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It owns a building situated at 42 G. D. Ambekar Marg, Wadala, Bombay. The said building consists of basement , ground and three upper stories. There are in all 14 Galas and/or units in the said building; some of these galas are used for commercial purposes and some for the purpose of printing press. The petitioner society was assessed to water charges by the BMC in respect of the above building at the rate applicable to printing presses which is lower than the rate applicable for commercial establishments. In the year 1989, BMC having discovered that the water supplied to the above premises was used not only for printing press but also for commercial purposes found that the rate charged by it was not correct. It therefore made a fresh calculation on the basis of the correct rates of water charges applicable to the petitioner under the Water Charges Rules framed by the Corporation and raised a supplementary bill for the period from 1-4-1982 to 4-4-1987. It may be expedient at this stage to mention that the rate applicable to the printing presses is specified in Rule 1. 4. 1. Upto 4 April, 1987 the rate applicable to printing presses was Rs. 30/- per 10,000 litres whereas the rate applicable to shops, offices, industrial estates etc. under Rule 1. 5 was Rs. 40 per 10,000 litres. These rates were revised with effect from 5 April, 1987 to Rs. 45 per 10,000 litres for premises used exclusively for printing press and Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for premises falling under Rule 1. 5. The BMC went on charging the petitioner at the rate applicable to printing press till 1989 when the mistake was discovered and the impugned supplementary bills issued.

(3.) THE petitioner society objected to the supplementary demand. The objection having been turned down by the BMC, it approached this Court by filing the present petition.