P AND H HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCN Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At issue in this writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and Shri Ujjal Singh Sahni, Advocate, is the legality and validity of sub-cl. (g) of Cl. (iv) of bye-law 13 of the Chandigarh Water Supply Byelaws (for short, the 'Byelaws') substituted vide notification dated February 1, 1985, issued by the Chief Administrator of Chandigarh Administration, whereby water charges in relation to residential buildings or any part thereof being used for professional purposes, for instance, doctors, lawyers, architects, dentists etc. have been fixed at the rate of 0.75 paise per kiloliter, whereas the water consumed for domestic consumers in residential premises shall be charged at the following rates :- (a) First 250 liters = Rs. 0.40 per KL (Kilo-liter) (b) 25001 to 50000 = Rs. 0.50 per KL (c) Above 50,000 liters = Rs. 0.65 Per KL It is pleaded that higher rate of Rs. 0.75 per kilo-liter of water consumption has been fixed for institutions and establishments enumerated in cl. (iv) of bye-law 13. They are educational, medical, charitable and religious institutions. The residence of a lawyer is neither an institution nor an establishment. In any case, a residence of a lawyer cannot be treated alike and clubbed with these educational, medical, charitable and religious institutions which, by their very nature, cater to large number of people and form a class among themselves. The residential building being used for professional purposes by a lawyer has nothing in common with the above mentioned institutions comprise in cl. (iv) of Bye-law 13. The classification of a lawyer's residence in the category of these institutions is arbitrary and whimsical. It has no nexus with the object to be achieved and is discriminatory and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is prayed that bye-law 13(iv)(g) be declared ultra vires being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to levy water charges in respect of the residence of lawyers like all other domestice residential premises, be issued.

(2.) The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners and have resisted the writ petition. In their written statement the respondents pleaded, inter alia, that any building which is occupied by a lawyer or any other professional like doctors, architects, etc. or wherever commercial activity is going on, is treated to be a building which is being used for commercial purposes irrespective of the fact that only a part of the same is being used for such purpose. Most of the lawyers, who have been allotted chambers, are maintaining their offices at their residences. The classification of persons in sub-cl. (g), cl. (iv) of Bye-law 13 was justified on the ground that the premises were used by the lawyers for professional use and, therefore, higher rate of water was charged. The difference in the rates of water supplied was not because the water was being used for professional purposes. Upward revision of the water rates was necessitated in 1985, because of the extra huge expenditure incurred for bringing water to Chandigarh from the Bhakhra Main Canal, the delivery of which is taken at a distance of 29 Kms. from Chandigarh. It was contended that the Chandigarh Administration had divided the residents/consumers in Chandigarh into various categories like domestic, irrigation, industrial and institutional/semi-commercial. The lawyer fell in the last category, i.e. semi-commercial. It was stated that the categorisation was legal and constitutional. The water rate as per the impugned notification is applicable to premises, inter alia, of Lawyers on the basis that it is being put to professional use. Similar categorisation exists for industrial and irrigational purposes. It is a reasonable classification having, nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Lower rates were charged from domestic consumers and higher rates were charged from professional commercial consumers. Such classification also exists with regard to rates charged for sale of residential and commercial sites. It was emphasized that higher rates were charged on the basis that the premises were used for professional purposes without taking into account the quantity of water used by a professional man. Since the lawyers maintain their office in residences they are charged higher rate for the premises being used for residential purposes.

(3.) It will be apposite to read the relevant provisions of the impugned bye-law 13. It reads as under :-