1. Office objection is waived.
1. 2 & 3. By order, dated 30-3-2001 we had directed that a responsible officer of the Government be present in Court to explain the position as to the responsibility to supply water. No such officer, however, is present in Court though a letter is said to have addressed to the concerned officer by the learned Addl. A.-G. Sindh. We strongly disapprove such indolence and would require that a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary. Local Government Department, who is expected to respond in writing.
2. The petitioners appear to be aggrieved by certain bills from the respondent No,5 (KW&CB), whereby water and conservancy charges calculated on'the basis of prescribed charges for retail water supply, have been demanded. The admitted position is that the premises in possession of the petitioners are located within the territorial limits of respondent No,.,2 (Karachi Cantonment Board) and not those of the respondent No,7 (Karachi Metropolitan Corporation) under section 3(3) of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of the respondent No,5 extends to the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation unless it is extended beyond such limit by a Notification issued by the respondent No,3 (Government of Sindh). Neither of the respondents have been able to place any Notification extending the jurisdiction of the respondent No,5 to areas falling within the limits of respondent No,2, despite several opportunities granted. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the jurisdiction of respondent No,5 had not been lawfully extended to the area where the petitioners' premises are located. It may be added that under section 217 of the Cantonments Act, it is the duty of a Cantonment Board in every Cantonment where sufficient supply of pure water for domestic use does not already exist to provide or arrange for the provision of such supply.
3. ' Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has alternatively argued that the respondent No,5 (KW&SB) could only claim charges for bulk supply of potable water from the respondent No,2 (Karachi Cantonment Board) and not from individual consumers. Reliance is placed on section 9 of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act, 1996, the relevant provisions whereof read as under:-- - "(1) The Board shall be responsible for bulk production of potable water and its distribution in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
4. (2)
(3) The Board shall arrange retail distribution of Water within its jurisdiction excluded the areas receiving water supply through Constituent Bodies.
(4) The Board may, subject to availability, supply water to any person or authority in the area or areas notified under this Act.
(5) The Board shall continue to make bulk water supply to the Constituent Bodies at such rates and subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Board.
5. (7)
6. ' Explanation.----The term 'Constituent Bodies' shall mean and include the Authority, Karachi Port Trust, Cantonment Board of Karachi, Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate, Karachi, Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. Defence Services or any other body or organization notified by Government."
7. ' It appears quite clear from the above-quoted provisions that bulk water supply is to be made to "Constitutent Bodies" who in turn are responsible for retail supply in their respective areas. The Board is required to arrange retail' distribution only in these areas which are not receiving water supply through Constituent Bodies. This is augmented from the fact that separate rates of bulk supply and retail supply have been laid down in the Sindh Government Notification, dated 4-121996.
8. Indeed the Karachi Cantonment Board falls within the ambit of the expression Constitutent Bodies in terms of the explanation to section 9(7). Nevertheless it is admitted that unlike some other Constitutent Bodies the area coming in its jurisdiction falls outside the limit of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. Reading sections 3 and 9 together, we are of the view that supply of potable water could only be made to areas in a Cantonment after a Notification under section 3(3) was issued so as to bring such area within the jurisdiction of the Board and therefore, bulk water/ could be made to the Cantonment area. h is, therefore, quite clear that under no circumstances could the respondent No,5 make supply on retain basis' or collect charges on annual rental value basis.
9. For the foregoing reasons we would declare the demand notices addressed to the petitioners to be without lawful authority and at the same time direct the respondent No,5, which is required to perform its duties in the public interest and within the specified limits of its authority, to disconnect the water supply made to the petitioners without loss of time. Likewise the respondent No,2 is directed to make appropriate arrangements for water supply, and if necessary, approach the respondent No,3 for issuance of a proper Notification. /order accordingly.