AEN PHED JODHPUR Vs. HABIB AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The file was taken up today due to suspension of work on 22.8.2003. The appeal is barred by limitation by 147 days. The only explanation offered for this inordinate delay is that the delay was caused in obtaining permission of the concerned authority to file an appeal and in the appointment of panel Lawyer. It is too general an explanation to be accepted. We are not satisfied with the sufficiency of cause of delay. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. On merits too we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Undisputedly the respondent was having a water connection for domestic purposes. He was charged at commercial rate on the ground of his letting out a shop to a carpenter. There is no evidence that the respondent had ever drawn or permitted to be drawn water from his connection for other than domestic purposes. No nexus between the use of the water and carrying on any commercial activity either inside the house or in the shop has been established. The issue involved in the appeal, therefore, stands squarely covered by our decision in the case of AEN, PHED of Nand Kishore Appeal No.1437/99 decided on 31.3.2003. Thus on merits also there is no case in favour of the appellant. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.