MAHARAJA DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions involve similar questions and, are therefore, being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) MAHARAJA Dilip Singh and Maharaja Devi Singh are brothers of late His Highness Maharaja Hanuwant Singh, who was the Ruler of the State of Jodhpur when it was merged with the Union of India Smt Mahendra Kumarji it the widow of Maharaja Hari Singh who was also the brother of Maharaja Hanuwant Singh. The Ministry of States, Government of India, in its letter dated March 24, 1949, provided inter -alia, that the free supply of water to the Ruler and the members of his immediate family for their private residence the State shall be continued. It was further provided that the 'Members of the immediate family' will be deemed to include the mother, uncle and brothers of the Ruler and that they will continue to be entitled to all the privileges which they were enjoining then. This letter was treated to be a part of the covenant and was to have the same effect as that or the covenant itself. Subsequently, in the meeting held on May 6, 1955, at the residence of the Commissioner, Jodhpur, for fixing the maximum limit of consumption of electricity and water, it was decided that the maximum limit of consumption of water by the brothers of the Ruler shall be the same as that of Maharajadhiraj Ajit Singh, which was fixed as 35,00,000 gallons. The petitioners case was that they enjoyed this facility till March 31, 1967 in the capacity of being members of the immediate family of the Ruler. This was, how ever, stopped with effect from April 1, 1967 by the order of Governor, which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government on August 8, 1967. The petitioner's case is that after the withdrawal of the facility of free supply of water from April 1, 1967, they have been regularly paying the water charges and there is thus no dispute about the payment of any water charges subsequent to that period. How ever in 1979 -80 the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department issued notices calling upon the petitioners to pay water consumption charges. The demands made were as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_538_TLRAJ0_1989.htm</FRM>

(3.) IN reply the case of the respondents was that the facility of free water and electricity supply was allowed to the Ruler and the members of his family and a ceiling was also fixed for the consumption of free water and electricity. It was 10% of the Privy purse for a period of 3 years from May 1, 1956, and thereafter 8% of the Privy purse. It was stated that this facility had been availed of by the Ex -Ruler and the petitioners and no right to claim the same as it had already been availed of an adjusted from the amount of the Privy purse. The respondents have further contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable by virtue of Article 363 of the Constitution which bars adjudication by the Courts in disputes arising out of the provisions of a Covenant, agreement etc.