1998 (3) TMI 678 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of water charges provision framed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the refund of amounts paid under invalidated rules, and the application of limitation principles in seeking refunds.

Validity of Water Charges Provision:
The appellant, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, framed rules for Water Charges under Section 141 and Section 169 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The scope of these provisions was considered in a previous case, where the High Court's view on Rule III (d) (i) was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that charges could only be levied for water actually supplied and consumed, based on measurement. The matter was referred to a larger Bench for further consideration, but the Court upheld the previous decision, stating there was no reason to reconsider it. The High Court's order directing refunds was also upheld.

Refund of Amounts Paid Under Invalidated Rules:
A petitioner sought a refund of water charges paid without legal authority, as the relevant rules had been nullified by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court rejected the claim due to delay in filing, citing laches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the charges were illegal, and thus, the recoveries should be refunded without the application of limitation principles. The Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the High Court's finding of laches and stating that the claim was made long after the charges were paid and the law was declared.

Application of Limitation Principles:
The Court considered the petitioner's argument that the illegal water charges should be refunded without limitations, based on previous decisions and principles of mistake. However, the Court upheld the High Court's decision on laches, stating that the claim for refund was made long after the charges were paid and the law was declared. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.