JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - The petitioners, twenty-five in number, are residents of the town of Mirzapur. They challenge the validity of the demand made by the respondent, Municipal Board, Mirzapur, for paying the water tax from September, 1957 to December, 1972. 2. It appears that the State Government desired to impose water tax in the municipal limits of Mirzapur. It issued a directive in January, 1965. The Municipal Board requested the State Government to drop the proposal for the time being and to improve the water supply system. Ultimately, by a notification dated September 21, 1867 issued under Section 135 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, water tax was imposed with effect from October 1, 1967. It appears that the residents of the town made representation to the Chairman of the Municipal Board which formed the subject-matter of a resolution by the Board which was sent to the Slate Government but the State Government turned them down and asked the Hoard to implement the realisation of water tax. In 1972 the elected Board was superseded and an Administrator was appointed. On December 27, 1972, the Administrator issued an order directing the recovery of water tax from October J, 1967 onwards. In the said order, the Administrator directed recovery of water tax at the rate of 10 per cent of the annual value of the buildings. In due course, notices for payment of the water tax were issued which led the petitioners to rush to this Court. 3. In the writ petition it was alleged that the water supply is very meagre, there is virtually no pressure in the water pipes, that the imposition of water tax at 10% of the annual value of the buildings is illegal, that the water which is supplied is neither properly filtered nor purified, it is full of dirt and mosquitoes. The Municipal Board is not carrying out its obligations as contained in the rules. It is hence not entitled to realise tax. 4. In the counter-affidavit, all these allegations have been denied. It has been asserted that proper pressure is maintained. There are adequate arrangements for Alteration and purification of the water. The water is periodically checked for its purity. Several reports by the Government Public Health Laboratory have been filed which show that the water supply is satisfactory. 4. In the counter-affidavit, all these allegations have been denied. It has been asserted that proper pressure is maintained. There are adequate arrangements for Alteration and purification of the water. The water is periodically checked for its purity. Several reports by the Government Public Health Laboratory have been filed which show that the water supply is satisfactory. It has also been asserted that the bills have been made out on the basis of meter readings attached to the water connection of the petitioners. 5. It will thus appear that the facts are disputed. It is well settled that relief under Article 226 is not ordinarily granted on disputed facts, 6. In support of their allegations the petitioners have, along with their rejoinder affidavit, filed copies of newspaper reports. They are hardly of any value. According to the Supreme Court decision in Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez and others etc., ( AIR 1969 SC 1201 at 1220) a news item, without any further proof, is of no value. It is at best a secondary evidence it is well known that the reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who publishes them. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. As such, news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. Barring bare allegations no other evidence has been adduced to support the allegations. The Board solutions, dubious as they all, are of prior period. We are not satisfied that the petitioners have affirmatively established that either proper pressure is not maintained or that water supply is not pure. 7. Learned counsel invited our attention to Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur v. The Municipal Board, Rampur, ( AIR 1965 SC 895 ). In paragraph 15 their Lordships referred to Section 129 of the Municipalities Act and held that the restriction imposed thereunder applies where there is no standpipe Within the prescribed distance of the building. In the writ petition there is no allegation that there is no standpipe within the prescribed limits. Hence the question that the levy is invalid because the restriction contained under Section 129 has not been complied with, does not arise. 8. It was also faintly suggested that recovery for more than three years is barred by time and is hence .illegal. Hence the question that the levy is invalid because the restriction contained under Section 129 has not been complied with, does not arise. 8. It was also faintly suggested that recovery for more than three years is barred by time and is hence .illegal. A period of limitation is prescribed for a civil suit. Recovery proceeding under other enactments are not subject to the period of limitation prescribed for civil suits. There is hence no merit in this plea either. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy by way of an appeal against the imposition, under Section 160 of the Municipalities Act. The petitioners did not avail of that remedy. That is also a ground for non-interference. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.