Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Zawar Sales Limited, a small-scale industry engaged in manufacturing, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) to properly adjudicate and calculate water charges for the period from May 2005 to May 2012. The Petitioner contended that MIDC arbitrarily increased water charges from Rs.16.50 to Rs.51.10 per cubic meter without any justification. The Petitioner had previously filed Writ Petition No.1903 of 2006, which was disposed of on 4.11.2009 directing MIDC to decide the Petitioner's representation considering water consumed as raw material and water used for allied activities. Despite the Petitioner furnishing details on 16.1.2010, MIDC did not decide the representation and instead raised bills including delayed payment charges. Another Writ Petition No.4210 of 2011 was filed, and the Court directed MIDC to decide the representation within two weeks. MIDC sought and obtained extensions but still failed to decide the representation. The Petitioner then filed the present petition. The Court, after hearing the parties, directed MIDC to decide the Petitioner's representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, taking into consideration the water consumed as raw material and water used for allied activities, and to recalculate the water charges accordingly. The Court also directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner for recovery of the disputed water charges until the representation is decided.
Headnote
A) Water Law - Water Charges - Calculation - The Petitioner, a small-scale industry, challenged the arbitrary increase in water charges by MIDC from Rs.16.50 to Rs.51.10 per cubic meter without proper justification. The Court directed MIDC to decide the Petitioner's representation taking into consideration water consumed as raw material and water used for allied activities, and to recalculate the water charges accordingly. Held that water charges must be based on actual consumption and not arbitrary rates (Paras 2-4). B) Administrative Law - Representation - Delay in Decision - The Petitioner had made a representation seeking review of water charges as directed by the Court in earlier writ petitions. MIDC failed to decide the representation despite being granted extensions. The Court held that MIDC must decide the representation within a stipulated time and cannot levy delayed payment charges without proper adjudication (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent no.1 (MIDC) is obliged to properly adjudicate and calculate water charges for the Petitioner considering water consumed as raw material and water used for allied activities, and whether the Respondent no.1 can levy delayed payment charges without deciding the Petitioner's representation.
Final Decision
The Court directed Respondent No.1 to decide the Petitioner's representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, taking into consideration the water consumed as raw material and water used for allied activities, and to recalculate the water charges accordingly. No coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for recovery of the disputed water charges until the representation is decided.
Law Points
- Water charges must be based on actual consumption
- water used as raw material must be considered
- delayed payment charges cannot be levied without proper adjudication
- representation must be decided in accordance with law
