Full Judgment Text
2023INSC609
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 4150 OF 2021
TRUST ESTATE KHIMJI
KESHAWJI & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the correctness of judgment
and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by Division Bench
of Calcutta High Court whereby intra court appeal
preferred by appellant was dismissed affirming the
judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed by
learned Single Judge disposing off the writ petition of
the appellant with directions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2023.07.06
16:43:10 IST
Reason:
1
3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are
summarized hereunder:
3.1. Notice dated 22.08.2008 was issued by
1
Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Sections
238 and 271 of the Kolkata Municipal
2
Corporation Act, 1980 . The said notice was
addressed to the appellant describing it as owner
or occupier of premises No.30, C.R. Avenue,
Kolkata. It stated that appellant had
contravened Section 238 of the Act by using
water supplied for domestic purpose, for
purposes other than domestic; that there was no
permission under Section 271 of the Act for
using water supplied for domestic purposes for
any other purpose; that such unauthorised use
is a punishable offence under Section 610 of the
Act making the appellant liable for prosecution;
1
In short “KMC”
2
In short “the Act”
2
and that if the said contravention is not stopped
immediately, the water connection would be cut
off under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The said
notice is reproduced hereunder:
“Form No. W.S.4
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Water Supply Department
(Notice to desist from contravening Section 238
& 271 of C.M.C. Act, 1980)
Notice No…..018
Section/Ward….G/47
Dated…..22.08.08
To
Estate Khimji Keshawji
The Owner or Occupier of the
Premises No.30, C.R. Avenue
It has been brought to the notice of the
undersigned that in contravention of the
provision of Section 238 of the C.M.C. Act, of
1980 (W.B. Act LIX of 1980) the water supplied
for domestic purpose in the premises no.30, C.R.
Avenue, Ward No.47 is being used/and or
allowed to be used for purposes other than
domestic in the premises viz. Business & Office.
Please note that under the provision of
Section 271 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 no person
shall, without the written permission of the
Municipal Commissioner use or allow to be used
water supplied for domestic purposes, for any
3
other purposes. Besides, the unauthorised use
is a punishable offence under Section 610 of the
C.M.C. Act, 1980 and you may be liable to
prosecution.
The undersigned as such, require you
forthwith desist from using or allowing to be
used water supplied to the premises no.30, C.R.
Avenue, Ward No.47 for any purpose other than
domestic purpose, failing which the water
connection would be cut off or the supply of
water thereto would be turned off under the
provision of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, without
any further reference.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Asst. SAE,W.S./G Exec.Engineer
Engineer
Section ‘G’ Water Supply(C)
C.P.-67 – 28-10-06-5,000
Dated 22.08.2008”
3.2. It would also be relevant to state that
another notice of even date was issued for
contravention of Section 258 read with Section
558 of the Act calling upon the appellant to
immediately remedy the fault in the supply line
failing which KMC would itself carry out the
repair work and recover its expenses from
appellant. It further warned the appellant that
4
supply could be turned off or cut off under
provisions of Section 275(1)(f) & (i) of the Act.
3.3. Proceedings with respect to the notice
under Section 258 of the Act came to an end as
repair work was carried out by appellant to the
satisfaction of KMC. As such only issue which
survives for consideration is the validity of notice
under Section 238/271 of the Act.
3.4. The appellant preferred writ petition before
the High Court registered as WP No.1414 of
2008 challenging the notice under Section
238/271 of the Act. In the said petition it was
stated that appellant was owner of the said
premises which comprised of ground floor and
six floors. Apart from the top floor and the
ground floor which was occupied by the
appellant for residential purposes, rest of the
floors were let out to various offices and
commercial establishments. Various other
5
grounds were raised in the petition. However, for
consideration of this appeal, following grounds
raised would be relevant which are stated
hereunder: -
(i) The notice was only addressed to the owner
and not to all the occupiers, details of which
were available with KMC as trade licences
were issued by it from time to time in favour
of different occupants.
(ii) Under Section 272(4) of the Act, which begins
with a non-obstante clause, it was provided
that wholesome water may be used in lieu of
unfiltered water for non-domestic purposes
where supply of unfiltered water is not
available. It is admitted case that unfiltered
water is not available in the locality where the
premises in question is situate.
(iii) The impugned notice was non-speaking as it
did not give details of alleged violations; as
6
such no specific response could be given by
the appellant.
(iv) The contravention of Section 275(1)(c) of the
Act gives the power to the Commissioner to
cut off or turn off supply of water where
occupier of the premises contravenes Section
238 of the Act. It was as such submitted that
without notice to various occupiers the notice
itself was bad in law.
(v) The owner (appellant) was using the water
supply only for residential/domestic purposes
as such there was no violation of any
provision by them.
(vi) The appellant had also filed supplementary
affidavits before the writ court stating all
further facts relevant to the case and also
annexed the trade licences issued to various
occupants, wherein it was clearly mentioned
7
that the water charges were being charged
under Section 238(2) of the Act. This in effect
permitted use of wholesome water for
purposes other than domestic.
3.5. The learned Single Judge did not agree with
submissions of the appellant and accordingly held the
notice to be valid. It however granted liberty to the
appellant to seek necessary permission for use of
water in their premises for non-domestic purposes
from the Municipal Commissioner under Section 239
of the Act. Such application could be filed within
seven days from the date of the judgment which was
to be dealt with in accordance with law by a reasoned
order within four weeks of submission of such
application. Further, it kept the impugned notice in
abeyance till an order is passed by the Commissioner.
It also granted liberty to the appellant to recover fees,
which it may have to pay in seeking the permission,
8
from the occupiers. The operative portion of the order
of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:
“…In view of the aforesaid discussion I hold that
the impugned notice upon the writ petitioner
No.1 is lawful and valid. In similar
circumstances, another learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Ashwin Properties Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation &
Ors. Reported in 2005 (4) CHN 134 upheld
similar notice upon the owners of the premises.
However, in view of the fact that the writ
petitioners are entitled to seek necessary
permission for user of water in their premises
for non domestic purposes from the Municipal
Commissioner, I grant liberty to the writ
petitioner to make an application in terms of
Section 239 of the Act of 1980 before the
Municipal Commissioner for seeking permission
for user of water in the premises for non
domestic purpose. In the event, such application
is made within seven days from date, the
Municipal Commissioner shall deal with the
same in accordance with law and pass a
reasoned order thereon. The Municipal
Commissioner shall pass such an order within
four weeks from the date of making such
application for permission. In the event, an
application is made within the period as stated
9
nd
hereinbefore, the impugned notice dated 22
August, 2008 under Section 238 read with
Section 271 of the Act of 1980 shall remain in
abeyance till an order is passed thereon by the
Municipal Commissioner, as aforesaid.
I make it clear that any application for
necessary permission for use of water for non
domestic purposes and payment of any fees
therefore by the petitioners as the owner of the
premises would not stand in their way of
availing of any remedy available in law to
recover the same from the occupiers of the
premises and the Corporation authorities shall
render all necessary assistance in that regard
in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ
petition is disposed of. All interim orders stand
vacated. There shall be no order as to costs...”
3.6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single
Judge the appellant preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench which came to be dismissed vide
impugned order dated 19.11.2019.
10
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and also perused the material on record including the
counter affidavit filed by KMC.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory
provisions from the Act. The following definitions from
Section 2 of the Act which are relevant for this case
are reproduced hereunder:
2
(21) "Corporation" means the [Kolkata]
Municipal Corporation established under
this Act;
(29) "domestic purposes", in relation to the
supply of water means the purposes other
than those referred to in sub-Section (2) of
Section 238;
(38) "filtered water" means waler intended
for domestic use and tested for its
potability and purity and found fit for such
use;
(60) "occupier" includes any person for the
time being paying or liable to pay to the
11
owner the rent or any portion of the rent of
the land or building in respect of which the
word is used or for damages on account of
the occupation of such land or building,
and also a rent-free tenant:
Provided that an owner living in or
otherwise using his own land or building
shall be deemed to be the occupier thereof,
(62) "owner" includes the person for the
time being receiving the rent of any land or
building or any part of any land or
building, whether on his own account or as
agent or trustee for any person or society
or for any religious or charitable purpose or
as a receiver who would receive such rent
if the land or building or of any part of the
land or building were let to a tenant;
6. Part-V of the Act deals with Civic Services and
Chapter XVII thereof deals with water supply. Section
234 mandates that it shall be the duty of the KMC to
take steps for supply of wholesome water in the entire
Kolkata and also to ensure that it is available in
12
sufficient quantity. Section 234(1), which is relevant
for our purpose is reproduced hereunder:
“234. Corporation's duty to supply water :-
(1) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to take
steps from time to time—
(a) for ascertaining the sufficiency and
wholesomeness of water supplied within
1
[Kolkata];
(b) for providing a supply of wholesome water in
1
pipes to every part of [Kolkata] in which there are
houses, for domestic purposes of the occupants
thereof, and for taking the pipes affording that
supply to such point or points as will enable the
houses to be connected thereto at a reasonable
cost, so, however, that the Corporation shall not be
required to do anything which is not practicable at
a reasonable cost or to provide such a supply to
1
any part of [Kolkata] where such a supply is
already available at such point or points aforesaid:
[Provided that the Corporation may, at any time,
levy an annual fee at such rate as may be fixed by
regulations, or as stated in the budget estimate
under sub-section (3) of section 131, in this behalf,
on the owner or the occupier of, or on the person
liable to pay 2 [property tax] on, any house to which
such supply of wholesome water is made:
13
2
[Provided further that the Corporation may levy
annual fee on the basis of annual valuation of
buildings or premises in a graded manner, at such
rates, as may be determined by the Corporation by
regulations, but such rate shall not exceed ten per
cent of the annual valuation as may be so
determined or seperately calculated in respect of
the premises or building or portion thereof.].]
[Explanation I.- Supply of water shall include
supply through service mains of the Corporation or
through tubewell allowed to be sunk within the
premises or both or procured from any other
municipal source.
Explanation II.- "House" includes a building, flat
as defined in the West Bengal Building (Regulation
of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by
Promoters) Act, 1993 (West Ben, Act XX of 1993),
or apartment as defined in the West Bengal
Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (West Ben. Act
XVI of 1972);]
(c) for providing, as far as possible, a supply of
wholesome water otherwise than in pipes to every
1[
part of Kolkata] in which there are houses, for
domestic purposes of the occupants thereof and to
which it is not practicable to provide a supply in
pipes at a reasonable cost, and in which danger to
health arises from the insufficiency or
unwholesomeness of the existing supply and a
14
public supply is required and can be provided at a
reasonable cost, and for securing that such supply
is available within a reasonable distance of every
house in that part.
7. Section 234(A) of the Act gives a right to the
owner of a building to recover fee for supply of water
from the occupier thereof, who uses the same for
residential purpose or otherwise. The proviso thereto
further permits that amount may be apportioned in
case there are more than one occupier. The aforesaid
Section is reproduced hereunder:
“234A. Recovery of fee for supply of water by
owner from occupier:-
The owner of a part or flat of a building for which
fee for supply of water is charged may recover the
entire amount of such fee from the occupier thereof
who uses it for residential purpose or otherwise:
Provided that if there is more than one such
occupier, the amount of fee for supply of water
may be apportioned or recovered from each such
occupier in such proportion as the annual value of
the portion occupied by him bears to the total
annual value of the building comprising such part
or flat.”
15
8. Section 235 of the Act mandates that KMC shall
provide supply of unfiltered water in Kolkata. The
proviso to the said Section allows the Corporation to
discontinue supply of unfiltered water where supply
of wholesome water in sufficient quantity is available.
The said Section is reproduced hereunder:
“235. Supply of unfiltered water.
-The Corpora-
tion shall provide a supply of unfiltered water—
1
(a) in those parts of [Kolkata] in which such water
is provided at the commencement of this Act, and
1
(b) in such other parts of [Kolkata] as it may think fit:
Provided that the Corporation may discontinue the
1
supply of unfiltered water in any part of [Kolkata]
where a supply, in sufficient quantity, of
wholesome water becomes available.”
9. Section 238 of the Act restricts the use of
wholesome water for domestic purposes only and
further provides the purposes for which wholesome
water may not be used. The said Section is
reproduced hereunder:
“238. Supply of water for domestic purposes
not to include any supply for certain specified
16
purposes. -
(1) The use of wholesome water shall be for domes-
tic purposes only.
(2) The supply of water for domestic purposes un-
der this Act shall not be deemed to include any
supply—
(a) for washing of animals kept for sale or hire, or
(b) for such trade, manufacture or business as may
be determined by the Mayor-in-Council, or
(c) for fountains or swimming baths, or
(d) for watering gardens or streets, or
(e) for any ornamental or mechanical purpose, or
(f) for building purposes, or
(g) for flushing purpose other than the purpose of
flushing privies in bustees, or
(h) for washing cars, carriages and [other vehicles,
or
(i) to any institutional building, assembly building,
business building, mercantile building, industrial
building, storage building or hazardous building,
referred to in sub-clause (c), sub-clause (d), sub-
clause (e), sub-clause (t), sub-clause (g); sub-clause
(h), or sub-clause (1), as the case may be, of clause
(2) of Section 390, or to any part of any such build-
ing, other than that used as a residential building
or educational building within the meaning of sub-
17
clause (a) or sub-clause (b), as the case may be, of
clause (2) of Section 390:
Provided that in. case of emergency, wholesome
water may be used for extinguishing fire.”
10. Section 271 of the Act restricts any person to use
water supply for domestic purposes for any other
purpose without written permission of the
Commissioner. The said Section is reproduced
hereunder:
“271. Water supplied for domestic purposes
not to be used for non-domestic purposes. - No
person shall, without the written permission of the
Municipal Commissioner, use or allow to be used
water, supplied for domestic purposes, for any
other purposes.”
11. Section 272 of the Act mentions the purposes for
which unfiltered water can be used. The same is
reproduced hereunder:
“272. Use of unfiltered water. - (1) Unfiltered
water shall be used for the following purposes :
(a) extinguishing of fire;
(b) street watering;
18
(c) flushing of drains of the Corporation, gully-pits,
public privies and urinals.
(2) Unfiltered water may also be used, free of
charge,
(a) for flushing privies and urinals in private prem-
ises connected with sewers;
(b) for flushing of drains in private premises;
(3) Unfiltered water shall not be used for domestic
purposes or, without the written permission of the
Municipal Commissioner, for any purposes other
than those specified in sub-sections (1) and (2).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained
hereinbefore in this Chapter, wholesome water
may be used in lieu of unfiltered water for non-
domestic purposes where the supply of unfiltered
water is not available for the time being.”
12. The Municipal Commissioner under Section 275
of the Act is vested with the power to cut off or turn
off supply of water to premises under various
conditions which are enlisted therein. Under Clause
(c) of Section 275(1) of the Act, one of the conditions
provided is where the occupier of the premises
contravenes Section 238 of the Act. As this case does
not relate to any other violation except contravention
19
of Section 238 of the Act, Section 275(1)(c) of the Act
is reproduced hereunder:
“275. Power of Municipal Commissioner to cut
off or turn off supply of water to premises:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the Municipal Commissioner may cut off the
connection between any water works of the
Corporation and any premises to which water is
supplied from such works, or may turn off such
supply, in any of the following cases, namely:
....................
(c) if the occupier of the premises contravenes
section 238;”
13. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant are summarized hereunder:
(i) The impugned notice is bad in law as it is a non-
speaking notice and does not give any details of the
violation. It is vague and general in nature to which
no specific reply can be given.
(ii) Despite the fact that KMC was well aware of the
st th
other occupiers of 1 to 5 Floor of the building in
20
question, as trade licenses were already issued to
such occupiers, no notice was given to them thereby
vitiating the entire proceedings.
(iii) The appellant, who is the owner of the building
th
and occupied only the ground floor and the 6 Floor
had been using the water supply only for domestic
purposes and not for any other purpose, as such, the
notice to the appellant was liable to be discharged.
(iv) It is admitted position that there is no supply of
unfiltered water in the locality where the building in
question is situate and, as such, the use of wholesome
water for non-domestic purposes is permitted under
Section 272(4) of the Act. The impugned notice under
Section 271/238 of the Act, thus stood vitiated in law.
(v) As per the trade licenses issued by the KMC in
st th
favour of the occupiers of the 1 to 5 Floor of the
building in question, property tax was being levied for
use other than domestic and water charges were also
levied for such use, as such also the impugned notice
21
was liable to be discharged. The use of wholesome
water for purposes other than domestic was permitted
and justified.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-KMC sought to justify the notice and
submitted that as liberty had been given by the
learned Single Judge to take appropriate proceedings
for rectification of the lapses on the part of the
appellant, this Court may not interfere with the same.
The notice under Section 238/271 of the Act was valid
st th
and justified as admittedly the occupiers of 1 to 5
floor were using it for commercial/business/office
purpose, which was other than residential. The
learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench
rightly did not interfere with the impugned notice.
There is no illegality warranting interference, as such,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
22
15. Having considered the submissions, we find that
this appeal deserves to be allowed not on one but on
many counts.
16. We have perused the notice impugned in the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge. The said
notice is under Section 238/271 of the Act. Section
271 of the Act prohibits use of water supply for
domestic purpose for any other purpose. Section
238(2) of the Act provides for the purposes for which
supply of water for domestic purposes cannot be
used. Section 238(2) of the Act enlists nine categories
for which supply of water for domestic purpose should
not be used. It was, therefore, incumbent for the
authorities to mention the specific violation in the
notice under Section 238(2) of the Act and specify that
supply of domestic water was being used for which
purpose other than domestic. The impugned notice
does not mention any reason or specific violation
committed by the appellant. It is a general and a
23
vague notice to which apparently no
answer/explanation could be given.
17. Law on the point is well settled that where a
notice is vague and non-speaking, the same deserves
to be quashed. Reference may be had to the following
cases:
(i) Biecco Lawrie Ltd. Vs. State of West
Bengal; (2009) 10 SCC 32.
(ii) K.Vinu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu;
2019 SCC Online Mad 123.
(iii) Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs.
Workers Union; (1974) 3 SCC 318.
(iv) Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.;
(2009) 12 SCC 40.
18. Under the Scheme of the Act, it was the
Corporation’s duty to supply water. Section 234 of the
Act clearly mandates that the KMC was duty bound
to ensure and take necessary steps from time to time
24
for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of
water supply within Kolkata. The above Section
further laid down the guidelines and the procedure for
levy of annual fee where water was being supplied to
any building. It also carved out exceptions where no
fee would be levied on supply of water.
19. The Scheme of the Act further provided two
categories of water being supplied by the KMC. First
is the filtered water or wholesome water which was
potable also and could be used for domestic purposes
and the other is unfiltered water which could be used
for purposes other than domestic which are enlisted
under Section 238 of the Act. The Scheme further
provided under Section 271 of the Act that water
supply for domestic purposes could not be used for
any other purpose except domestic without written
permission of the Commissioner.
20. Section 272 of the Act describes the purposes for
which unfiltered water can be used, for example,
25
extinguishing of fire, street watering, flushing of
drains of the Corporations for flushing privies and
urinals in private premises, for flushing of drains in
private premises. Under sub-Section 3, it is provided
that unfiltered water would not be used for domestic
purpose without written permission of the
Commissioner or for any purpose other than those
specified in sub-Sections 1 & 2. Sub-Section 4 starts
with a non-obstante clause and it states that
wholesome water may be used in lieu of unfiltered
water for non-domestic purposes where supply of
unfiltered water is not available.
21. In the present case, it is admitted position that
there is no supply of unfiltered water in the
locality/area where building in question is situated.
As such, the filtered water or the wholesome water
could be used for purposes other than domestic by
the owner/occupier of the building in question. Thus,
26
it cannot be said that there was any violation of
Section 238 or 271 of the Act.
22. The non-obstante clause in Section 272(4) of the
Act clearly mentions that notwithstanding anything
contained in hereinbefore in this chapter which covers
Section 271 as also Section 238 of the Act as the
entire scheme of water supply is covered under
Chapter XVII of Part-V beginning from Section 233
right up to Section 276 of the Act. Section 272(4) of
the Act would thus have overriding effect with respect
to all the provisions of that chapter namely Chapter
XVII of Part V of the Act.
23. The appellant had annexed copy of the trade
st th
licenses issued to the occupiers of 1 to 5 floor, copy
of the same are attached as part of the supplementary
affidavit (Annexure P-8) . The fee and charges under
various Sections of the Act are mentioned in the trade
license. Rs.1,000/- was being charged as fee under
Section 199 of the Act which refers to a certificate of
27
enlistment for profession trade and calling. Further
fee/charges have also been levied under Section 307
of the Act which is for levy of fee for drainage and
severage services. Thereafter, fee/charges have been
levied under Section 435 of the Act where premises
are to be used for non-residential purposes. The next
fee/charge is under Section 238(2) of the Act for use
of water.
24. From the above, it is clear that trade license was
issued for use of the premises by the licensees for
purposes other than non-residential and necessary
levy for fee under various heads including water
charges was also made. In such fact situation, it could
not be alleged by the KMC that there was any violation
of Section 271 or 238 of the Act where specific license
has been issued for use of the premise for other than
residential purpose and moreover where there was no
supply of unfiltered water in the area/locality. The
occupiers would, therefore, be well within their rights
28
to use water supply for domestic purpose for any
other purpose in view of Section 272(4) of the Act.
25. KMC was fully conscious and aware of the
occupiers of all the seven floors of the building in
question i.e. the ground floor plus six floors. They
were also aware that the appellant, who is the owner
of the building was occupying the ground floor and
th
the 6 Floor. KMC had issued trade licenses to all the
st th
occupiers of the 1 to 5 Floor. The statute primarily
lays down the liability on the occupier of the building
to pay water charges. It was therefore mandatory for
the Corporation to first give notice to the occupiers
and make an attempt to recover the charges from
them. It is only upon failure to recover dues, if any,
from the occupiers that the demand could be raised
against the owner. In the present case, KMC having
failed to initiate any proceedings against the
occupiers committed serious error in initiating the
proceedings only against the owner.
29
26. There is one more reason why notice to the
occupier was essential. The notice mentioned that in
case water supply for domestic purpose was being
used for any other purpose other than domestic,
under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the water supply
could be cut off or turned off. Section 275(1)(c) of the
Act, which is already reproduced above clearly refers
to occupier of the premises contravening Section 238
of the Act. Therefore, notice ought to have been
addressed to the occupier in the first place before
cutting off the connection or turning off the supply.
27. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the
Corporation before this Court and also from the
specific stand taken by the Corporation before the
High Court, it is apparent that KMC admits that there
is no supply of unfiltered water in the area. Once that
is the fact situation coupled with demand of charges
on water for purposes other than domestic as per the
30
trade license, the impugned notice cannot be
sustained.
28. The High Court committed error by not relying
upon the non-obstante clause in sub-Section 4 of
Section 272 of the Act as it would have overriding
effect over anything contained in that chapter i.e.
Chapter XVII. Section 272(4) of the Act, therefore,
would have overriding effect over and above Sections
238 and 271 of the Act, once, it is admitted position
that there was no supply of unfiltered water. The use
of wholesome water for purposes other than domestic
cannot be held to be violative of any of the provisions
and all the more when the trade license permitted use
of the same.
29. Section 271 of the Act prohibits any person from
using water supply for domestic purposes for any
other purpose without the written permission of the
Commissioner. Here, we find that the trade license
which is issued by the KMC actually permitted use of
31
water supply whether filtered or unfiltered. Further
in the absence of any supply of unfiltered water, the
wholesome water could be used for non-domestic
purposes.
30. For all the reasons recorded above, the Appeal
deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and
orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
and the learned Single Judge are set aside.
31. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned notices therein are hereby quashed.
32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
33. KMC would be at liberty to initiate such
proceedings as may be permitted in law afresh.
….………………………………..J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI
JULY 05, 2023
32