Dismissed

Chamber of Small Industry Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2009PIL/80/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the legality of enhanced water charges imposed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 17 of the Corporation Act validly empowers it to levy such fees, even when passing on costs from the State Department of Irrigation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed; no costs.

Chamber of Small Industry Association Vs the State of… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.80 OF 2008

¶3

Chamber of Small Industry Association ... Petitioner Vs.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶5

... Respondents

¶6

ALONGWITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.96 OF 2008

¶7

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Ms. Shilpa Linge for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mas. J.S. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader for the State.

¶14

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2009

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The petitioner questions the legality and correctness of the

¶17

increase in water charges as shown in Exhibit `A' to the Public Interest Litigation No.80 of 2008. The contention raised before us is that under section 63 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, the Corporation has the power to frame

¶18

regulations/rules which are to be framed with the approval of the State Government but no such regulations have been framed and in absence thereof, enhancement of water charges is without authority of law. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be directed to pay the increased water charges.

¶19

On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that section 17 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 fully empowers the Corporation to levy the fee or service charges in relation to expenses of maintenance of different kinds stated in the provisions as well as the water supply made by the Corporation. It is further contended and in fact, is part of the writ petition itself in Exhibit `A' that the Corporation has increased the charges as it takes water from the Department of Irrigation of the State of Maharashtra which has increased the charges. Increase of the charges by the Department of the State Government in turn has been passed on by the Corporation to the consumers and it is well within their power and authority under the provisions of the Act.

¶20

We find merits in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. Moreover, there is no challenge to the fixing of the tariff. It is only for enhancing in the rates which is questioned in the present

¶21

writ petition. The judicial review in relation to the tariff has a very limited scope and the explanation rendered by the respondents before the court is in consonance with the statutory provisions with reference to section 17 of the Act and we see no reason to interfere. Both the Public Interest Litigations are dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Chamber of Small Industry Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamber of Small Industry Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soma Vithoba Talpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pankaj Anil Jawadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baban Govind Tidke Vs the Collector, Thane District and Ors.

Mumbai Bhusawal Railway Passengers Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sital K. Harchandani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajaram Ganpati Shingare and Anr. Vs the Principal Secretary through Ministry for Forest (Revenue and Forest) and Ors.

Mrs. Bindu G. Rohira Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sharvari Kiran Kurundkar Vs University of Pune and Another

Kataria Transport Company Vs State of Maharashtra

Gajanan Laxman Bhakare Vs Indian National Congress (Inc) and Ors.

Shri Toyaram Govind Patil Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp and Ors.

Maza Bharat Samajik Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.