RAKESH INK INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties finally. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm was granted licence by the Executive Engineer for excavation of the sand from the land for brick kiln for a period of five years on 24/05/2000. Copy of the licence is placed on record as Annexure 1. On 5th March, 2002, the Assistant Secretary to the State Irrigation Department conveyed to the respondent No. 2, approval of water supply to the petitioner for the purpose of brick kiln in Chak No. 2J Bada in the name of Rakesh Cement Udhyog to the extent of O. 03 cusecs for a period of 2 years on the condition that the petitioner will be bound by the conditions imposed by the State Government. Copy of this order is Annex. 2.

(2.) It is alleged that the respondent can charge the amount for water supplied to the petitioner in accordance with the Item No. 1 of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 only whereas the petitioner is being compelled to pay Rs. 20.00 per 1,000 cubic feet of water supply, treating the water supply to petitioner in category of water supply in bulk for industrial purposes under Item No. 5(a) of Schedule I. It is said that an affidavit was obtained from the petitioner firm that the petitioner would pay the rate fixed by the State Government and if the rate are charged @ 20/-, then the petitioner would pay the same. According to the petitioner, such demand is absolutely illegal and contrary to law. The Division Bench of this Court has already settled the controversy in the case of Rajendra Kumar Goyal v. State (DBC Spl. A. (W) No. 697/2001)wherein it has been held that the brick making is a specific item under Schedule I of the Rules of 1955 and the rates of water supply can be charged only in accordance with the rates given in Item I of Schedule I only. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the Division Bench of this Court has already decided the matter that water supply for the purpose of brick making and pise wall building is in a specific category then the respondents cannot create a demand or ask for payment by treating the water supply in general category by including this water supply in the category provided for industrial supply.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the Division Bench decided Rajendra Kumar Goyal's case, the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1955 was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and therefore, that judgment has no application to the present case.