- (1.) This appeal survives only with regard to the impugned notice dated 22nd August, 2008 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Water Supply Department in relation to unauthorised use of water for the purpose other than domestic purpose for which the permission was given. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that the water supply for domestic purpose in the premises in question is being used and/or allowed to be used for the purpose other than domestic purpose namely, for business and office purpose. It is the admitted position that the premises is being used for office and business purpose. Section 238 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, on a plain reading, shows that the supply of water for domestic purpose shall not include amongst others supply to any institutional building, assembly building, business building, mercantile building etc. other than the use as a residential building or educational building within the meaning of sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b), as the case may be, of clause (2) of section 390. As it emanates from the pleadings the building in question is a business building and does not come within any of the exceptions stipulated under Section 238(2)(i) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The said Section reads as under: "238. Supply of water for domestic purposes not to include any supply for certain specified purposes.-- *** *** *** (2) The supply of water for domestic purposes under this Act shall not be deemed to include any supply-- * * * * * * * * * (i) to any institutional building, assembly building, business building, mercantile building, industrial building, storage building or hazardous building, referred to in sub-clause (g), sub-clause (h), or sub-clause (I), as the case may be, of clause (2) of Section 390, or to any part of any such building, other than that used as a residential building or educational building within the meaning of sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b), as the case may be, of clause (2) of Section 390."
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Section 238 has to be read with Sections 271, 272 and Section 275(1)(c) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in order to find out whether there has been any violation of the provisions of the said Act and if so, the same is wilful and/or deliberate. Each Section of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has to be read in the context of the purpose for which such section has been inserted in the statute book. There is a clear provision in Section 238 that supply of water for domestic purpose not to include any supply for certain specified purposes. Whereas Section 271 authorises the municipal Corporation, in a given case, to grant written permission to use or allow to be used water supplied for domestic purpose for any other purposes. Section 272 immediately follows Section 271. The interpretation of Section 272 has to be adjudged in the context of Section 271 of the said Act of 1980. Section 272 deals with use of unfiltered water which is wholly unconnected with the supply of domestic water supply contemplated under Section 238 of the 1980 Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that by reason of non-obstante clause in Section 272(4) of the KMC Act, a commercial establishment may use wholesome water in lieu of unfiltered water for non-domestic purposes where the supply of unfiltered waster is not available for the time being.
(3.) The application for supply of water was on the basis that the supply with regard thereto would be used for domestic purpose. On such consideration we are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that by reason of Section 272(4) of the KMC Act, 1980, the petitioner would be entitled to use wholesome water in lieu of unfiltered water. The said Section has to be interpreted in the context of the case and not de hors the context of the case. It would have been different if the application for supply of water was initially made for non- domestic purpose and the Corporation was unable to supply wholesome waster. In such eventuality the submission of the appellant could not have been accepted. On such consideration, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ;