A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS group of petitions concerns a challenge to the levy of water tax on the petitioners by the Jal Sansthan, Kanpur under the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 ("the Act" for short). The petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the grounds of challenge are identical. The essential facts lie within a narrow compass. The various petitioners are running tanneries in the city of Kanpur. They are engaged in the business of tanning leather. The petitioners assert that they have made their own arrangement of water supply by installing tube -wells for meeting their requirements for running their tanning business. They further allege that the Jal Sansthan has made no arrangement for water supply to the petitioners. It is also their case that there is no stand -post or other water works of the Jal Sansthan capable of supplying water to the petitioners' factories. They have, however, been served by the Jal Sansthan with bills demanding water tax from the petitioners. The demand, they contend, is wholly without any authority of law as the Jal Sansthan is rendering no service which may entitle it to recover water tax from the petitioners. The impugned tax being in the nature of a fee is illegal not having any quid pro quo.
(2.) THE Jal Sansthan has contested the claim of the petitioners. It asserts that the levy under challenge is a tax permitted under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act. The Jal Sansthan further contends that the tax in question is really a tax on lands and buildings covered by entry 49 of the List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Sri R.C. Shukla learned counsel appearing for the Jal Sansthan lastly submitted that the validity of the impugned tax has been upheld by a Bench of this Court in a case of Kendriya Nagrik Samiti Kanpur and others v. Jal Sansthan Kanpur and others : 1982 U.P.L.B.E.C. 446 which decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 23 -1 -1987 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3464 -65 of 1982 filed by the Kendriya Nagrik Samiti against the judgment of this Court. The levy was attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds; first, that the water tax levied by the Jal Sansthan is in truth and substance a fee which could be charged by the Jal Sansthan, if at all, only if some service were rendered to the consumers of water supply by the Jal Sansthan. As, however, the Jal Sansthan has made no arrangement for water supply to the petitioners, it cannot levy or collect water tax on or from them; second, the Jal Sansthan having failed to make any rule prescribing the radius from the nearest standpost or other water -works at which water is made available to the public which was mandatory under clause (b) of Section 55 of the Act, it cannot levy any water tax on the petitioners until it has so prescribed such radius.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Jal Sansthan at some length and having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are clearly of the view that while there is no substance in the first point, the second ground of attack has considerable merit and must be sustained.;