LAWS(NCD)-2003-6-14

A EN PHED Vs. AMAR SINGH SAINI

Decided On June 06, 2003
A En Phed Appellant
V/S
AMAR SINGH SAINI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is barred by limitation by 59 days. The explanation offered for this delay is simply the administrative delays which generally occurs in filing the complaints/appeals on behalf of the State. No particular explanation for the delay committed in filing the appeal in the present case has been pleaded. The explanation does not explain the delay to our satisfaction. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Apart from the above the sole dispute in this appeal was that the appellant intended to apply water consumption charges at commercial rates for the consumption of water by the respondent from water connection for domestic purposes. The basis for demand was that the respondent had let out a shop in his premises wherin a 'kirana' shop has been carried on. The Forum found that neither in the residential premises of the respondent, nor in the 'kirana' shop water was being used for other than domestic purposes. It was particularly held that no water was being used in the 'kirana' shop for carrying on the business in such shop. This position of facts attracts our decision in appeal No.1437/99; Asstt. Engineer and Ors. V/s. Nand Kishore, decided on 31.3.2003 wherein it was held that commercial rates may be charged on the basis of use of water as per Rule 17 of the Water Supply Rules, 1967. If the purposes of the use of water is domestic, charges would be at the domestic rates, but if the purpose of the use of water is non-domestic or in other words commercial the charges would be at non-domestic purposes. The above order of the Commission squarely covers the issue involved in this case. Moreover the issue stands covered by the decision of the Commission in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Jagroop Kothari; Appeal No.212/2000 decided on 21.6.2000 as confirmed by the National Commission in Revision No: 1760/2000 decided on 9.7.2001. Thus we find no case on merits also in favour of the appellant. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.