- (1.) C. A. 1179/94 and SLPs (C) Nos. 15507/87, 853/88 and 14587/87. In SLPs leave granted.
(2.) In this batch of cases, the appellant is Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, which has made provisions for Water Charges by framing appropriate Rules and Bye-laws pursuant to Section 141 and Section 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The scope of these provisions was considered in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Nagpal Printing Mills, (1988) 3 SCR 274 : (AIR 1988 SC 1009), by this Court and the view of the Bombay High Court that Rule III(d)(i) to be invalid and beyond the rule making power of Corporation was upheld. It was made clear by this Court in the said decision that the said provisions of the Act would empower the Corporation to levy charge only in respect of water that has in fact been supplied to and consumed by the consumer and it is to be levied on the basis of measurement or estimated measurement. It is also noticed that an estimated amount could be fixed on the basis of sound guidelines and the power given to the Commissioner to fix a quota has no guidelines. On the basis of this decision, the High Court disposed of several matters. Challenging the correctness of those decisions, these appeals have been preferred before this Court contending that the decision in Nagpal's case requires reconsideration and the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act considered earlier have been relied upon to contend that the appellant has competence to frame Rule III(d)(i) while the respondents have reiterated the view expressed in Nagpal's case. On hearing this aspect, a Bench of two learned Judges referred this matter to a larger Bench for consideration of the correct scope of the provisions that were considered in Nagpal's case. Thus the matter is before us.
(3.) We do not think that there is any good reason to reconsider the decision in Nagpal's case (AIR 1988 SC 1009). The view taken by this Court in Nagpal's case is a plausible one and subsequently that Rule having been deleted is now replaced by a new rule. We respectfully follow the view expressed by this Court in Nagpal's case and uphold the order made by the High Court.;