Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay Vs. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6302 of 1997
Petitioner: Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay
Respondent: Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6302 of 1997
Judges: V.N. KHARE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 23, 2001
Head Note:
MUNICIPALITIES / PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Section 170 with rule 4.1 – Liability of sewerage charges – Re-spondent alleged to be discharging its effluents in municipal drain or underground sewer – Denial by ~4~ High Court recording a finding of fact that respondent was not discharging effluents in municipal drain or sewer. Held that said finding is not liable to be interfered unless it is shown as perverse. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The appellant herein is constituted and established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Under the Act, the appellant is assigned the duty of main-tenance of municipal drains which either vest in or belong to it. The corporation sent a notice under section 170 read with rule 4.1 of the rules to the respondent herein, demanding sewerage charges. This was protested by the respondent. The respondent’s case is that it is not discharging its effluent in the municipal drain or underground sewer and, therefore, the corporation has no authority either to demand or realise sewerage charges. Since the corporation took steps to realise the said sewerage charges, the respondent herein filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, challenging the de-mands raised by the corporation. The High Court was of the view that the respondent herein was not discharging its effluents in the municipal drain or underground sewer which either belongs or vests in the corporation. On the aforesaid findings, the writ petition came to be allowed and the appellant herein was re-strained from raising or recovering any dues towards the sewer charges. It is against the said judgement of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that since the respondent is discharging its effluents in the municipal drain, therefore, it is liable to pay the sewerage charges. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent is not discharging its effluent in the municipal drain, therefore, the said finding is not liable to be interfered with in this appeal unless it is shown that the finding of fact recorded by the High Court is perverse or based on no evidence.
3. We have looked into the record and find that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the respondent, who was the writ petitioner in the High Court, asserted that it is not discharging its effluents in the municipal drains. Para 7 of the writ petition runs as under :
“The effluent is collected by the petitioners in their own drain-age system and taken to low lying area in the campus where oxida-tion ditch is situated. The petitioners are not discharging or throwing used water to the drainage service line of the respond-ents. In fact, there is no sewerage line of the respondent in the vicinity of the petitioners’ research centre.”
4. We find that para 7 has not been denied in the counter affida-vit filed by the appellant herein to the writ petition. In other words, the contents of para 7 of the writ petition has been admitted. Further in para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that during monsoon period, the respondent discharges the monsoon water in the municipal storm water drains. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, a finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court that the respondent is not discharging its effluent in the municipal storm water drain or channel. This finding has not been shown to be vitiated on any ground. This, being the finding of fact, it is not open to the challenged in this appeal.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, before we part with the case, we would like to observe that if, at any later point of time, the respondent discharges its effluents in the municipal drain excepting monsoon water, it would be open to the appellant herein to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.
6. With these observations, we dismiss this appeal with costs, which is assessed at Rs.2,000/-
1. The appellant herein is constituted and established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Under the Act, the appellant is assigned the duty of main-tenance of municipal drains which either vest in or belong to it. The corporation sent a notice under section 170 read with rule 4.1 of the rules to the respondent herein, demanding sewerage charges. This was protested by the respondent. The respondent’s case is that it is not discharging its effluent in the municipal drain or underground sewer and, therefore, the corporation has no authority either to demand or realise sewerage charges. Since the corporation took steps to realise the said sewerage charges, the respondent herein filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, challenging the de-mands raised by the corporation. The High Court was of the view that the respondent herein was not discharging its effluents in the municipal drain or underground sewer which either belongs or vests in the corporation. On the aforesaid findings, the writ petition came to be allowed and the appellant herein was re-strained from raising or recovering any dues towards the sewer charges. It is against the said judgement of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that since the respondent is discharging its effluents in the municipal drain, therefore, it is liable to pay the sewerage charges. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent is not discharging its effluent in the municipal drain, therefore, the said finding is not liable to be interfered with in this appeal unless it is shown that the finding of fact recorded by the High Court is perverse or based on no evidence.
3. We have looked into the record and find that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the respondent, who was the writ petitioner in the High Court, asserted that it is not discharging its effluents in the municipal drains. Para 7 of the writ petition runs as under :
“The effluent is collected by the petitioners in their own drain-age system and taken to low lying area in the campus where oxida-tion ditch is situated. The petitioners are not discharging or throwing used water to the drainage service line of the respond-ents. In fact, there is no sewerage line of the respondent in the vicinity of the petitioners’ research centre.”
4. We find that para 7 has not been denied in the counter affida-vit filed by the appellant herein to the writ petition. In other words, the contents of para 7 of the writ petition has been admitted. Further in para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that during monsoon period, the respondent discharges the monsoon water in the municipal storm water drains. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, a finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court that the respondent is not discharging its effluent in the municipal storm water drain or channel. This finding has not been shown to be vitiated on any ground. This, being the finding of fact, it is not open to the challenged in this appeal.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, before we part with the case, we would like to observe that if, at any later point of time, the respondent discharges its effluents in the municipal drain excepting monsoon water, it would be open to the appellant herein to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.
6. With these observations, we dismiss this appeal with costs, which is assessed at Rs.2,000/-
