JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in W. P. Nos. 5169/75 and 11743/76 challenging the water rate levied and the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 534/77 is challenging validity of the demand of water charges made by the respondent Mangalore Municipality. The real question raised in these petitions only relates to the power of the City Municipal council to levy and collect water charges, in addition to the water rate levied by way of property tax under Section 94 (1) (viii) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Karnataka act No. 22 of 1964) - (called shortly 'the karataka Act' ). ( 2 ) THIS question has already been determined and answered in favour of the Municipality by one of us (Jagannatha Setty. J.) in THE CITY municipal COUNCIL, MANGALORE v. THE SESSIONS JUDGE OF SOUTH kanara and OTHERS (W. P. No. 3163/70 - d. D. November 15, 1973 ). This decision has been affirmed by Division Bench (G. K. Gov- inda Bhat, CJ. ,and M. K. Srinivasa lyengar, J) in w. A. No. 69 of 1974 - D. D. February 5, 1974. After these decisions, a Full Bench of this court in KASTURIRANGA IYENGAR v. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN [1975 (2) Kar. L. J. 333] has laid down that it is not competent for the Municipal Council to levy water rate and also charges for water supplied on any individual or individuals under the provisions of the Karnataka Act. The Full bench has also observed that for water supplied by a Municipal Council, it is competent for the municipal Council under Section 94 (1) (viii) of the Karnataka Act to levy water rate or water rates in the form of tax assessed on buildings and lands, or to levy charges for supply of water to individual according to the quantity used or according to the terms agreed upon. ( 3 ) IT is contended for the petitioners, that the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 3163/1970 affirmed in W. A. No. 69/1974 is no longer good law and must be held to have been impliedly overruled by the Full Bench decision in Kas- turiranga lyengar's case and therefore the City municipal Council of Mangalore has no jurisdiction to collect charges for supply of water in addition to the water rate or vice versa. ( 4 ) BEFORE we consider the contention urged for the petitioners, we may set out the undisputed facts: the City Municipal Council, Mangalore, was established under the Madras District municipalities Act, 1920- (Madras Act of 1920 - called shortly 'the Madras Act' ). Consequent on the reorganisation of States in 1956, South kanara District, which was part of the erstwhile state of Madras, came to be integrated with the erstwhile State of Mysore, to form the New mysore State, which is now called the State of karnataka. The State of Karnataka enacted the karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 consolidating and amending the law relating to the municipalities while repealing among others, the Madras Act. Prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka Act, the City Municipal council, Mangalore, has framed what are known as 'the Mangalore Municipality Water supply Bye-laws' under the provisions of Sections 132 and 306 to 310 of the Madras Act. Under the said Bye-laws, the Municipality was collecting water charges for actual supply of water to the petitioners and several other persons. Besides, the Municipality was also levying property tax inclusive of water and drainage charges as per the provisions of the Madras act. After the repeal of the Madras Act, the municipal Council levied water rate under Section 94 (1) (viii) of the Karnataka Act in the form of tax assessed on buildings and lands and it also continued to collect charges for the use of water under the said Bye-laws. ( 5 ) THE contention urged by Sri B. P. Holla, counsel for the respondent, is that the Karnataka Act prohibits the Municipal Council from imposing water rate in the form of tax assessed on buildings and lands and also from collecting water charges for the supply of water under the afore-said Bye-laws. The counsel relied upon Section 382 (2) of the Karnataka act with a further submission that the Full bench decision of this Court in Kasturiranga lyengar's case has not correctly laid down the law. At the outset, we may make it clear that we are bound by the Full Bench decision of this court in Kasturiranga lyengar's case. We may, however, point out that the Full Bench was not called upon to consider the scope and effect of section 382 (2) of the Karnataka Act. At the outset, we may make it clear that we are bound by the Full Bench decision of this court in Kasturiranga lyengar's case. We may, however, point out that the Full Bench was not called upon to consider the scope and effect of section 382 (2) of the Karnataka Act. It was not concerned with so much of the problem prsented before us in these cases. It only considered the ambit and scope of Section 94 (1) (viii) of the Karnataka Act. ( 6 ) SECTION 382 (1) of the Karnataka Act has repealed the Madras Act. There is a usual saving clause incorporated under the proviso to sub-section (1), stating that such repeal shall not affect: (a) the previous operation of the repealed laws or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under those laws etc. It has been also provided thereunder that any tax, fee or cess imposed, notification, order, instrument, or direction issued, rule, regulation, form, bye-law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted or registration effected under the repealed laws shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Karnataka Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the Karnataka Act. ( 7 ) NOW Section 382 (2) of the Karnataka Act, on which the decision on these cases depends, demands analysis. For immediate reference, it is set out below:"382 (2): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any tax, fee or cess imposed under the said laws may, notwithstanding that such tax, fee or cess cannot be imposed under the provisions of this Act, be continued to be levied and recovered as if the provisions of such laws and the rules, bye-laws, orders and notifications made or issued thereunder relating to such levy and recovery had not been repealed". In the first place, this sub-section is not concerned with tax, fee or cess which could be imposed under the corresponding provisions of the Karnataka Act. It expressly directs that if any tax, fee or cess has been levied and recovered under the repealed laws upon coming into force of the Karnataka Act, it shall be continued to be. In the first place, this sub-section is not concerned with tax, fee or cess which could be imposed under the corresponding provisions of the Karnataka Act. It expressly directs that if any tax, fee or cess has been levied and recovered under the repealed laws upon coming into force of the Karnataka Act, it shall be continued to be. levied and recovered notwithstanding that such tax, fee or cess cannot be imposed under the provisions of the Karnataka act. That means, it is concerned with only such tax, fee or cess which cannot be properly levied under the Karnataka Act. This proposition has been made clear by stating that such laws, rules, bye-laws, orders and notifications made or issued under the repealed laws enabling such levy and recovery of tax, fee or cess must be held to have been not repealed by sub-section (1) of Section 382. ( 8 ) THE City Municipal Council in order to sustain the levy of water charges, after coming into force of the Karnataka Act, must therefore establish that such water charges levied under the bye-laws framed under the Madras Act cannot be levied and recovered under the provisions of the Karnataka Act. In order to substantiate this contention, Mr. B. P. Holla has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Madras Act. Section 81 of the Madras Act provides power to levy property tax, which comprises tax for general purposes, water and drainage tax, lighting tax, scavenging tax, railway tax etc. , section 81 (1) (b) provides power to levy property tax. It reads thus:"a water and drainage tax to provide for expenses connected with the construction, maintenance, repair, extension or improvement of water or drainage works here to force provided or hereafter to be provided. "this Section does not authorise the Municipal Council to levy charges for supply of water. Sections 129 to 132 authorise the Municipal Council to supply water fit for domestic use of the inhabitants. Section 131 states that the Municipality may at its discretion on aplication by the owner or occupier of any building, arrange, in accordance with the bye-laws to supply water thereto for domestic consumption and use. Section 132 confers discretion on the municipal Council to supply water for non- domestic consumption. Section 131 states that the Municipality may at its discretion on aplication by the owner or occupier of any building, arrange, in accordance with the bye-laws to supply water thereto for domestic consumption and use. Section 132 confers discretion on the municipal Council to supply water for non- domestic consumption. Section 132-A (1) reads as follows:-"for all water supplied under Section 131 or under Section 132, payment shall be made on such basis, at such times, and on such conditions as may be laid down in the by-laws made by the Council, and shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property tax. "these provisions indicate that it was obligatory for the Municipal Council within the permissible limits of its finance to supply sufficient quantity of water for the inhabitants fit for the domestic user and also for any purpose other than domestic consumption. The Municipality was also authorised to frame bye-laws for the purpose of recovery of charges for the water supplied. ( 9 ) SECTION 306 provides power for the Municipal Council to make bye-laws not inconsistent with the Act. As we have earlier stated that the municipal Council, Mangalore, has framed the mangalore Municipality water Supply Bye- laws under the above provisions. Bye-law 41 provides for free allowance of water. Bye-law 41 provides for free allowance of water. Bye- law 46 provides for levy of charges of water consumed for domestic purpose in excess of free allowance of water. Bye-law 47 deals with excess water charges for non-domestic supply. It is not in dispute that the Municipal Council has been recovering water charges under these bye-laws while at the same time collecting water rate prescribed under Sec. 94 (1) (viii)of the Karnataka Act. ( 10 ) IT is now necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Act. It is not in dispute that the Municipal Council has been recovering water charges under these bye-laws while at the same time collecting water rate prescribed under Sec. 94 (1) (viii)of the Karnataka Act. ( 10 ) IT is now necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Act. Section 94 (1) (viii) provides that subject to the general or special orders of the Government, a muncipal council ater observing the preliminary procedure required by Section 95 and with the sanction of the Government and at rates not exceeding those specified in I, III, IV, VI and VII may levy any one or more of the following rates:s. 94 (1) (viii): "a water rates or water-rates for water supplied by the municipal council which may be imposed in the form of a tax assessed on buildings and lands, in any other form including that of charges for such supply fixed in such mode or modes as shall be best adopted to the varying circumstances of any class of cases or of any individual case". Section 94 (2) reads:"notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) every muncipal council shall levy such taxes on buildings or lands or both under clauses (i), (vii), (viii) and (ix) of sub-section (1) the aggregate of which shall not be less than, -- (i) twelve and a half (now raised to fifteen) per cent of the annual rateable value in the case of town Municipalities; (ii) Seventeen and half (since raised to twenty) per cent of the annual reteable value in the case of the City Municipalities. "it will be seen from the above provisions that it is obligatory for every Municipal Council to levy water rate which shall not be less than the rate prescribed under the Karntaka Act. The Municipal Council of Mangalore in compliance with these mandatory provisions has levied water rate on the basis of the annual rateable value of the buildings and lands. ( 11 ) MR. Shivashankar Bhat and Mr. Sridharan in support of their contention have relied upon section 139 of the Karnataka Act and we may now therefore analyse the said Section. Section 139 reads thus:-139. ( 11 ) MR. Shivashankar Bhat and Mr. Sridharan in support of their contention have relied upon section 139 of the Karnataka Act and we may now therefore analyse the said Section. Section 139 reads thus:-139. "fixed charges and agreements for payment in lieu of taxes - (1) A municipal council may, instead of imposing a water rate or where a water rate has been imposed, in individual cases, instead of levying a rate imposed in respect of the supply of water belonging to municipal council to or for use in connection with any private lands or buildings (a) fix at rates not exceeding such as shall be specified in the rules in force under Section 323, charges for such supply according to the quantity used, as ascertained by measurements; or (b) arrange with any person on his application to supply on payment, periodically or otherwise, water belonging to the municipal council in such quantities, or for such purposes (whether domestic, ornamental, or irrigational or for trade, manufacture or any other purpose) on such terms and subject to such coditions as it shall fix by aggreement with such person". (Proviso omitted) this Section no doubt confers discretion on the Muncipal Council to levy charges for supply of water according to the quantity used instead of the water rate. The charges can be collected either by agreement with such persons or suo motu by the Municipal Council. In either case, however, the power conferred under Section 139 is not in addition to, but instead of levying water rate under Section 94 (1) (viii ). The construction of this section also supports the view taken by this Court in Kasturi ranga lyengar Case. There is, therefore, no provision under the Karntaka Act to levy fees or collect charges for supply of water for domestic or non-domestic consumption, if the municipality levies water rate as required under Section 94 (1) (viii ). ( 12 ) THE bye-laws by the Managalore Municipal Council framed under the Madras Act for the purpose of collection of water charges are therefore saved and the Municipal Council could continue to collect water charges for the supply of water under the said bye-laws by reason of the provisions contained under Section 382 (2) of the Karnataka Act. ( 13 ) THERE remains, however, one other contention urged for the petitioners. ( 13 ) THERE remains, however, one other contention urged for the petitioners. It was urged that Section 382 (2) saved only such tax, fee or cess which were directly imposed by the laws which have been repealed under Section 382 (1) and not by the bye-laws or orders or notifications issued under the repealed laws. ( 14 ) WE do not think that there is any substance in this contention. Section 382 expressly provides that tax. fee or cess imposed under the said laws and not by the said laws. The words 'undor the laws' would signify what it is not necessary that the impost should be by the statute itself. It could be imposed by virtue of powers derived from the subordinate legislation under such laws. In Dr. INDRAMANI pyarelal GUPTA and OTHERS v. W. R. NATU and OTHERS (AIR 1963 S. C. 274) the supreme Court observed at pp 281: "the meaning of the word 'under the Act' is well known. 'by' an Act would mean by a provision directly enacted in the statute in question and which is gatherable from its express language or by necessary implication therefrom. The word 'under the Act' would, in that context signify what is not directly to be found in the statute itself but is conferred or imposed by virtue of powers enabling this to be done; in other words, bye-laws made by a subordinate law making authority, which is empowered to do so by the parent Act. The distinction is thus between what is directly done by the enactment and what is done indirectly by rule making authorities which are vested with powers in that behalf by the Act - in view of this clear pronouncement of the supreme Court, we do not think that any more discussion is needed on this aspect of the matter. ( 15 ) BEFORE parting with the case we may make it clear that in the demand notices issued to the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 5169/75 and 11743/76 the municipal council has also demanded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the water rate due from the petitioners. We express no opinion on the power of the municipal council to recover interest claimed on the power arrears of water rate or water charges. We leave that question for the parties to work out their rights. We express no opinion on the power of the municipal council to recover interest claimed on the power arrears of water rate or water charges. We leave that question for the parties to work out their rights. ( 16 ) IN the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate fee Rs. 250. 00 in each. --- *** --- .