SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners praying for a declaratory decree to the effect that enhancement of water tax by the petitioner No.1 was illegal, void ab initio and without legal authority. The suit of the respondents was dismissed on 27-2-2006. The respondents filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi who accepted the appeal vide order, dated 26-4-2006. The present civil revision has been filed to impugn the above judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 1-7-2003, the water rates were enhanced for area of Rawalpindi Cantt. The same rates were enforced on 30-6-2005 for area of Chaklala Cantt. He further submitted that the above increase was based on resolution dated 18-8- 2005. He also submitted that there is difference between water charges and water tax. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to PLD 1978 Lah. 872, the learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to section 232 of Cantonments Act, 1924.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner increased water tax from Rs.
150 per month to Rs.500 per month. He submitted that enhancing of water rates was unjustified and without any legal backing. In this regard, he referred to Notification No.855, dated 11-9-1953.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly referred to PLD 1978 Lah. 872 and also section 232, and submitted that there was no need to comply with provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. I may point out that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support him. As a matter of fact, the above cited judgment helps to the learned counsel for the respondent. It seems that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not read the judgment carefully. Similar view like the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken in this case was taken in the cited case by the learned counsel for the respondents. In para.7 of the cited judgment, it is noted as under: "He also relied on section 232 of the Cantonment Board Act to say that the Board could itself levy water charges and was not obliged to follow the procedure given in sections 60 to 63 and refer the matter to the Central Government for its approval."
On the above point, the Court held in para.9 of the same judgment as below:-- "Section 232 only empowers the Board to fix and levy charges to be made for the establishment of communication from and connection with mains or pipes for the supply of water or gas. The Board is further empowered to fix and levy the charges for meters and other appliances meant for testing the quantity or quality of the water or gas supplied."
The Court further observed in para.15 as under:-- "Thus, water tax is a tax as provided in section 60. It lays down that the Board may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose in any Cantonment any tax which under any enactment for the time being in force, may be imposed in any Municipality wherein such Cantonment is situated. Section 61, provides that after the passing of a resolution for imposition of tax, the Board shall, in the manner prescribed in section 255, publish a notice specifying the proposal to persons or classes of persons to be made liable and the description of the property or other taxable thing or circumstance in respect of which they are to be made liable and the rate at which the tax is to be levied. These proposals are then to be published for objections: After hearing objections the final proposal has to be placed before the Central Government through the Officer Commanding-in-Chief the command, for its approval with or without modifications as it thinks fit."
5. In the cited judgment, after hearing objections, the final proposals had been submitted to the Government for approval but without waiting for approval, the respondents itself had revised the water tax rates by enhancing them as it has been done in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to base his arguments on the basis of section 232 as it was done by the learned counsel for the respondent in the cited case. The interpretation of section 232 was not approved by the Court and it was observed asunder:- "That approval was, however, still awaited when the respondent itself revised the previous rates by enhancing them. It was done under the supposed powers vesting the respondent under section 220 read with section 232 of the Act. No such power vested in the respondent as discussed above, under the above noted provisions of law. Likewise the revision by the respondent of the water rates vide the impugned Resolution No.14, dated 17-1-1974, read with No.24 of 21-3-1974 is not valid so far as it concerns water supply for the domestic use only."
6. Thus, the above analysis of judgment, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. PLD 1978 Lah. 872, shows that order of the learned Additional District Judge is correct. It is also held that relevant provisions in the facts and circumstances of this case are sections 60 to 63 and not section 232. In this regard para. 2 of PLD 1978 Lah. 872 is relevant for guidance. It is also held that procedure provided in sections 60 to 63 is mandatory to revise and enhance the water rates or water tax. It is also clarified that section 232 is not meant for enhancement of water rates on use of water. It only empowers the Board to fix and levy charges to be made for the establishment of communication from and connection with mains or pipes for the supply of water or gas. The Board is further empowered to fix and levy the charges for meters and other appliances meant for testing the quantity or quality of the water or gas supplied. It is also held that purposes of section 232 and sections 60 to 63 are different as discussed above and both purposes should not be inter-linked and mixed up with each other. In context of section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, words "water charges" and "water tax" are interchangeable.
7. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this civil revision is dismissed and the order of the learned Additional District Judge,' Rawalpindi, dated 26-4-2006 is upheld as no illegality or irregularity has been found therein.