Bombay High CourtWP/10627/2023disposed off

Ms Nawal Industries Through Proprietor Sanmukhdas Sukharamdas Mandhwani v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2023-08-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade7 pages

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 33 WRIT PETITION NO.10627 OF 2023 MS NAWAL INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR SANMUKHDAS SUKHARAMDAS MANDHWANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH IT'S SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.S.G.Karlekar, AGP for the Respondent/State. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.) DATE : AUGUST 28, 2023 PER COURT :

Having heard this matter for some time, we find as under :- [a] The Petitioner has not paid the water charges since 2006. [b] The Petitioner is not willing to show to the Court the entire bills of water charges even as per the rate of Rs.10/- per Cubic Meter (which he claims to be an appropriate rate).

[c] There is no pleading in the petition that all earlier water bills have been cleared as per the rate of Rs.10/- per Cubic Meter. [d] There is no statement that the Petitioner is not in arrears as per the charge of Rs.10/-.

- 2 - [e] Bills levied on the Petitioner are directly challenged in this Court. At the same time, the Petitioner is not willing to deposit 50% of the amount as per the impugned bills.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner sought a pass over to take instructions on the query as to whether he has paid the normal rates of the water charges till the month of July 2023 ? 3.

After lunch, the matter was called out and the learned Advocate for the Petitioner merely makes a statement that an amount of Rs.4,28,845/- was paid upto 02.05.2012. However, we find from the office note placed before us on page No.65, that the Petitioner has not been paying the water charges from 2005 onwards and he is in huge arrears.

The Petitioner has an ice factory. The entire water that is supplied to him is used as a raw material and ice is prepared out of the said water, which is sold as a finished product. The case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Waluj Industries Association, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009(2)

- 3 - Mh.L.J.683].

The office note at page No.65 and 66, which is in Marathi, reads as under :- ^ जळगांवऔदोगगककेतातीलभूखंडक. जी.

२८हामे.

नवालइंडससससज, जळगांव यांनागवतरीतकरणयातआलेलाअसूनभूखंडधारकांना१५मी.

मीवयासाची नळजजोडणीपतक.

५३२६गद. १८/१२/ १९८७मंजूरकरणयातआलेलीहोती.

नंतरभूखंडधारकांचयागवनंतीवरनतयांना२५मी.मी.

वयासाचीनळजजोडणीपत क.

२८८गद.०६/०२/ २००७नुसारमंजूरकरणयातआलेलीआहे. भूखंडधारकांचे उतपादनबररआहे.

भूखंडधारकांकडूनमाहेएगपल२००५पयरतऔदोगगकदराने पाणीदेयकेआकारलीजातहोती.

मुखयअभभयंता(मुंबई) यांचेपररपतकक. जी- १/ २००५गद. १८/०५/ २००५अनवयेपाणीकचामालमहणूनवापरणा- याउदोगांचे पाणीपुरवठयाचेदरर.३४.

६०पततघमीवाढगवणयातआले.

तयामुळेभूखंड धारकांचापाणीपुरवठाचादरमाहेमे- २००५पासून४४.

६०पततघमीपमाणे आकारणयातआला.

महामंडळाचे पररपतक क. जी- गद.१८/०५/ मधयेfunsZ'k fnY;kizek.ks गद.०१/११/ २००१ते३०/१२/ २००२वगद. ०१/१२/ २००२ते ३०/०४/ २००५याकालावधीतीलपाणीदेयकांचीFkdckdh र. ३६७८०. ००व १२२६०.

००हेऑगसस-२२०५ o lIVsacj२००५चयापाणीदेयकातसाकणयात आलेलीआहेत.

महामंडळानेपररपतकक. th५गद.१५/१२/ २००५मधयेगनदरश गदलेकीऔदोगगककेतातील ts गाहकबररउतपादनासाठीपाणीकचामालमहणून वापरकरनपदार/ रसायनेगसकगवणयासाठीबरर उतपादनकरतातवतयासाठी महाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमंडळाचेनाहरकतपमाणपतघेतलेलेअसलयासतयाचेपाणी

- 4 - पुरवठयाचेदरगद.०१/११/ २००१पासूनfdaok ts गाहकयातारखेनंतरनाहरकत पमाणसादरकरतीलतयातारखेपासूनसुधारीतकरणयातयावेतववसुलीपररपतक क. th-8 गद. ११/०६/ २००३पमाणेकरणयातयावी.

तयानंतरमहामंडळाचया पररपतकक.जी- ०१गद.०1/०२/ २००६मधयेसपषगनदरशगदलेलेआहेतकी महाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमंडळमहामंडळाचयापररपतकक. जी- ५गद.१/१२/२००५ मधयेनमूदकेलयापमा.ks uk gjdr पमाणपतnsr ulY;keqGs ts बररउतपादक पाणीकचामालमहणूनवापरनपदार / jlk;us fVdfo.;klkBh बरर उतपादनासमहाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमडळाचेसहमतीपत(Consent to operate) सादरdjrhy rsp पतनाgjdr समजणयात;kosभूखंडधारकांनासन १९९३पासूनConsent to operate पमाणपतगमळालेआहेत.

भूखंडधारकांनीपतक.

नाहीगद१४/११/ २०१४नुसारपाणीदेयक औदोगगकnjkus vkdkj.;kckcr वपाणीns;dkph रकबाकीऔदोगगकnjkus सुधारीतकरणयाचीगवनंतीकेलेलीहोती.

याकायारलयानेपतक.

डी- २१५१६गद.

२४/११/ २०१४नुसारभूखंडधारकासमहाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमंडळाचेपमाणपत सादरकरणेबाबतकळगवलेलेहोते.

तयासअनुसरनभूखंडधारकानेपतक.

नाहीगद.

१९/०६/ २०१५अनवयेसन२०२०पयरतचेमहाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमंडळाचे Consent to operate याकायारलयाससादरकेलेलेअसूनतयानुसारगाहकाचा पाणीपुरवठयाचादरमाहेजुन२०१५पासूनऔदोगगककरणयातआलेलेआहे. तरापीमहाराषसपदुषणमहामंडळाचयापमाणपतातसदरीलपमाणपतहेकधीपासून वैधयाचाबोधहोतनवहता.

तयामुळे याकायारलयानेपतक. सी-०९८४० गद.१३/०७/ २०१५नुसारभूखंडधारकांनातयांनीसादरकेलेलेमहाराषसपदुषण महामंडळाचयापमाणपतकधीपासूनवैधआहेयाबाबतगवचारणाकेलेलीहोती. तयास अनुसरनगाहकानेपतक.

नाहीगद.०५/१०/ २०१५सोबततयांना१९९३ते

- 5 - ३१/०३/ २००८पयरतव३१/०८/ २००८पासूनगद.३१/०३/ २०२०पयरतमहाराषस पदुषणगनयंतणमंडळाचेसमंतीपतअसलयाचेमहाराषसपदुषणगनयंतणमंडळाचा खुलाशाजोडलेलाआहे.

तयामुळेमे.

नवालइंडससससज, भूखंडक. जी- २८चेयांचे माहेरेबुवारी- २००७तेमे- २०१५याकालावधीतीलपाणीदेयकऔदोगगकदराने मॅनयुअलीतयारकेलेलेअसूनतयानुसारमे.

नवालइंडससससज, भूखंडक. जी- २८यांचे कडेमाहेनोवहेबर२०१५पयरतगनववळपाणीदेयकापोसीर.२,१६,२०९. ००व तयावरीलगवलंबशुलकर. ३,५०,०८१.

००असेएकूणर. ५,६६,२९०.०० रकाबाकीआहे. (पररभशष-१).* 6.

After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, we do find that there are several disputed issues. The water, that is supplied, is practically used to the extent of 90% as a raw material. The rates applicable for water being used as a raw material are much higher than the rates made applicable by the MIDC for water being used for any other purpose. The office note as well as the notice for payment of arrears water supply charges dated 19.10.2022, indicates that further default in payment was up to the end of September 2022 and the recoverable amount is of Rs.50,24,489/-, which is the subject matter of this petition.

By a communication dated 26.11.2018, the Petitioner had questioned the MIDC as regards the meter which measures the

- 6 - consumption of water. The Petitioner disputed the functioning of the meter. A dispute was raised as regards installing a second meter and the Petitioner questioned the MIDC as to why he should pay the average amount for consumption of water. It is now contended that the factory has been permanently closed down.

In view of the above, we do not find that such disputed issues could be entertained and more so, when the Petitioner has not been paying water charges from 2005 onwards.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. 10.

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that an observation be made that if he approaches the statutory authority, this order would not come in his way. We have not observed anything on the merits of the disputed issues before us. We had given an option to the Petitioner in the light of Shewalkar Developers Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune, [2016(1) Mh.L.J.382]. The Petitioner was not inclined. Therefore, in the event he approaches any Authority against any of the bills, subject to payment of the

- 7 - statutory deposit, all contentions are kept open. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)