TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (3) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinting Mills & Anr. 1988 (3) SCR, 274, by this Court and the view of the Bombay High Court that Rule III (d) (i) to be invalid and beyond the rule making power Corporation was upheld. It was made clear by this Court in the said decision that the said provisions of the Act would empower the Corporation to levy charge only in respect of water that has in fact been supplied to and consumed by the consumer and it is to be levied on the basis of measurement or estimated measurement. It is also noticed that an estimated amount could be fixed on the basis of sound guidelines and the power given to the Commissioner to fix a gupta has no guidelines. On the basis of this decision, the High Court disposed of several matters. Challenging the correctne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....swers the objections noticed by this Court in Nagpal's decision need not be examined as the new Rules are not in question before us. The High court having allowed the petitions has directed the refund of the amounts with certain rates of interest and if those amounts have already been refunded to the parties concerned, we do not think it appropriate to allow the appellants to recover such amounts again but if, however, such amounts have not been refunded and are retained by the Corporation, such amount shall not be refunded. We are making this order being conscious of the fact that the rule had been struck down not on the ground that it was incompetent to frame such Rule but on account of clear provisions not having been framed. Further, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Corporation was bound to refund said amounts and when such a claim had been made before the Corporation, the same had been rejected on imperishable grounds. The learned Single Judge who disposed of the writ petition held that the petition does suffer from undue delay and consequently the claim to refund from vice of laches but in spite of such laches, relief could be granted in respect of a period prior to three years from the date of filing of the petition in respect of the charges paid from January 28, 1986 onwards and directed the Corporation to compute the said amount and refund the same. On appeal to the Division Bench the Bombay High Court took the view that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge could not be sustained. The....