Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a dispute over water charges levied on a distillery unit manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in Nanded district. The petitioner company, initially Pioneer Distilleries Ltd. and later substituted by United Spirits Limited, challenged demand notices issued for lifting water from the Godavari river for industrial use. The petitioner alleged that the demand notices were arbitrary and illegal, and that the bulk water tariff orders of 2018 and 2022 issued by the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority under the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005 were arbitrary and ultra vires the Act. The petitioner also challenged orders of the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer and the appellate authority. The background included a permission granted in 1995 for agricultural water use and in 2003 for industrial use under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, with water charges initially at Rs.1 per cubic meter and later increased to Rs.10 per cubic meter, which the petitioner paid under protest. In 2018, the regulatory authority issued a bulk water tariff order classifying industries into process and raw material categories, and the petitioner's water lifting source came under the authority's jurisdiction. Demand notices were issued from December 2018 onwards, initially for about Rs.14.13 crores, then increased to Rs.20.75 crores and subsequently Rs.62.45 crores with penalty. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2019, which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer. The PDRO rejected the application on 27 April 2021, holding that water used by the distillery unit was correctly treated as raw material and the rate of Rs.240 per cubic meter was justified. The petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed on 25 July 2022, which directed the petitioner to approach the State Government for a bulk water supply agreement and to pay the full amount under the impugned notices, failing which penal action would follow. Fresh demand notices were issued in August 2022 for Rs.232.07 crores and Rs.236.50 crores. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court in 2022, and the present writ petition is numbered 2733 of 2025. The provided judgment text ends abruptly during the hearing on 23 September 2022, before the court's analysis, findings, or final decision. Therefore, the final holding and reasoning are not available from the extracted portion.
Headnote
A) Water Law - Bulk Water Tariff Orders - Classification and Validity - Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005, Sections 22(1), 22(3) - The petitioner challenged demand notices and bulk water tariff orders of 2018 and 2022 as arbitrary and ultra vires the MWRRA Act, contending that its distillery unit should not be classified as a raw material industry for water tariff purposes and that its water lifting point was partly assured, warranting lower rates - The respondent authorities held that water used by a distillery unit was correctly treated as raw material and imposed charges at Rs.240 per cubic meter, later issuing demands of Rs.232.07 crores and Rs.236.50 crores - Held: Not mentioned (Paras 2-19) B) Administrative Law - Alternative Remedy - Section 22 MWRRA Act - Exhaustion of Statutory Remedy - The petitioner initially filed writ petition 2468/2019, which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer under Section 22(1); the PDRO rejected the application and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal; the petitioner then filed writ petition challenging these orders - The court in the extracted portion only recorded the procedural history and did not rule on the merits - Held: Not mentioned (Paras 12-17) C) Water Law - Tariff Determination - Distinction Between Process Industry and Raw Material Industry - 2018 and 2022 Water Tariff Orders - The tariff orders classified industries into process and raw material categories with different rates; petitioner contended that its water use for manufacturing IMFL should be considered process, not raw material, and that its lifting point was partly assured; the appellate authority directed reassessment of water charges and payment of full amount under impugned notices - No final decision on legality of classification extracted - Held: Not mentioned (Paras 8-19) D) Constitutional Law - Ultra Vires Challenge - Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005 - The petitioner sought declaration that bulk water tariff orders 2018 and 2022 were unconstitutional, discriminatory and ultra vires the MWRRA Act - The extracted text lacks the court's analysis on this challenge - Held: Not mentioned (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Validity of demand notices and bulk water tariff orders of 2018 and 2022 issued under Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005; classification of distillery unit as raw material industry for water tariff; whether demand notices were arbitrary and illegal; whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against orders of original and appellate authorities.
Law Points
- Water charges for industrial use under Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act
- 2005
- classification of water as raw material versus process industry
- validity of bulk water tariff orders
- partly assured versus regulated water supply source
- alternative remedy under Section 22 of MWRRA Act
- permission under Section 70 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
