JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This group of petitions concerns a challenge to the levy of water tax on the petitioners by the Jai Sansthan, Kanpur under the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 ("the Act" for short). The petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the grounds of challenge are identical. 2. The essential facts he within a narrow compass. The various petitioners are running tanneries in the city of Kanpur. They are engaged in the business of tanning leather. The petitioners assert that they have made heir own arrangement of water supply by installing tube-wells for meeting their requirements for running their tanning business. They further allege that the Jai Sansthan has made no arrangement for water supply to the petitioners. It is also their case that there is no stand post or other water works of the Jai Sansthan capable of supplying water to the petitioner's factories. They have, however, been served by the Jai Sansthan with bills demanding water tax from the petitioners. The demand, they contend, is wholly without any authority of law as the Jai Sansthan is rendering no service which may entitle it to recover water tax from the petitioners. The impugned tax being in the nature of a fee is illegal not having any quid pro quo. 3. The Jai Sansthan has contested the claim of the petitioners. It asserts that the levy under challenge is a tax permitted under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act. The Jal Sansthan further contends that the tax in question is really a tax on lands and buildings covered by entry 49 of the List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Sri R.C. Shukla learned counsel appearing for the Jai Sansthan lastly submitted that the validity of the impugned tax has been upheld by a Bench of this court in a case of Kendriya Nagrik Samiti Kanpur and others v. Jai Sansthan Kanpurand others reported in AIR 1982 All 406 : 1982 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 446 which decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 23-1-1987 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3464-65 of 1982 filed by the Kendriya Nagrik Samiti against the judgment of this Court. 4. 3464-65 of 1982 filed by the Kendriya Nagrik Samiti against the judgment of this Court. 4. The levy was attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds, first, that the water tax levied by the Jai Sansthan is in truth and substance a fee which could be charged by the Jai Sansthan, ifatall, only if some service were rendered to the consumers of water supply by the Jai Sansthan As, however, the Jai Sansthan has made no arrangement for water supply to the petitioners, it cannot levy or collect water tax on or from them, second, the Jai Sansthan having failed to make any rule prescribing the radius from the nearest stand post or other water-works at which water is made available to the public which was mandatory under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the Act, it cannot levy any water tax on the petitioners until it has so prescribed such radius. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Jai Sansthan atsome length and having even the matter our anxious consideration, we are clearly of the view that while there is no substance in the first point, the second ground of attack has considerable merit and must be sustained. 6. We will begin with the first point as, to our mind, the matter stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Kendriya Nagrik Samiti, AIR 1982 All 406 (supra) which has already been affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on appeal. Between these two decisions the point stands foreclosed against the petitioners. In Kendriya Nagrik Samiti's case a Division Bench of this Court has occasion to examine the t rue character of the water leviable under Section 52 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The levy was attacked by the learned counsel on diverse grounds including inter alia the legislative competence of the State Legislature to make provision for levy of water tax. The Bench considered the question in considerable depth and came to the conclusion that the water tax leviable tinder the aforesaid Act is not a tax on water but a tax on lands and buildings and, therefore, covered by entry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Bench considered the question in considerable depth and came to the conclusion that the water tax leviable tinder the aforesaid Act is not a tax on water but a tax on lands and buildings and, therefore, covered by entry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Bench observed that prior to the enactment of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1975 the function to make provision for water supply to the inhabitants of a Municipal Board or Mahapalika were entrusted to these local bodies. The local bodies were enabled to impose water tax at a given percentage of the annual value of the building or land or both belonging to or occupied by the person from whom such a tax was realised. Under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1975, however, the same task was transferred and entrusted to the Jal Sansthan and, consequently, power was conferred under Section 52 of the Act on the Jal Sansthan to levy water tax and sewerage tax for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of Section 52 it was provided that the tax mentioned under sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall be levied at such rates which in the case of water tax shall not be less than 6%, and not more than 14% of the assessed annual value of the premises as the Government may from time to time declare by notification in the Gazette. 7. Taking note of these and other related provisions, the Division Bench negatived the challenge to the levy of water tax and summed up the law thus in paragraph 4 of the judgment "Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 52 of the Act, which empowered a Jai Sansthan to levy water tax and sewerage tax, was ultra vires on the ground of legislative competence. It was urged that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law as provided by Article 265 of the Constitution and since the taxes in question do not fall within the legislative field of any of the items in List II of the Seventh Schedule, they are invalid. It was urged that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law as provided by Article 265 of the Constitution and since the taxes in question do not fall within the legislative field of any of the items in List II of the Seventh Schedule, they are invalid. According to the learned counsel entry No. 17, which is the only head under which the State legislature it competent to legislate on subject of water supply etc., is not an entry relating to tax and under the residuary entry 66 only fee can be levied and no tax. This argument ignores entry 49 which empowers the State legislature to impose taxes on lands and buildings. The subject-matter of water tax is not water. Under Section 52 of the Act water tax as also sewerage tax is levied on the assessed annual value of the premises. It is in reality a tax on land and buildings though called water tax". (Emphasis supplied) Again in paragraph 12 of the judgment the Bench said : "In the light of these observations we may examine the provisions of Section 52 of the Act. The opening words of the Section 'for the purposes of this Act' give a clear direction about the object of the tax. Jal Sansthan is empowered to raise resources by way of tax for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It cannot be done for any other purpose unconnected with the Act. The limit to which tax may be levied has also been specified by providing that the water tax and sewerage tax may he levied on the assessed annual value of the premises. The source of revenue is, thus, clearly indicated. A further safe guard has been provided by laying down that the recommendations of the Nigam has to he considered by the Government before notifying the levy of taxes. Reasonableness of the tax has also been ensured by fixing the maximum limits. In our opinion all the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) are fully satisfied." 8. Reasonableness of the tax has also been ensured by fixing the maximum limits. In our opinion all the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) are fully satisfied." 8. The Bench categorically ruled on an analysis of the various provisions of the Act and on a consideration of the leading authorities on the subject that the water tax which the Jai Sansthan have been enabled to levy and collect constitutes their source of revenue and general fund for carrying out the purposes of the Act which include development and regulation of water supply and sewerage services and other matters connected therewith. The income earned from water supply thus partakes the character of general revenue of the Jai Sansthan so as to enable it to discharge its various functions set out in the Act. Indeed the revenue earned from the impugned tax constitutes its fund as envisaged under Section 41 of the Act which provides that every Jai Sansthan shall have its own fund which shall be deemed to be a local fund and to which shall be credited all moneys received by or on behalf of the Jai Sansthan. With respect we entirely agree with this decision. 9. The above decision as mentioned above has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by its decision in Civil Appeals Nos. 3464-65 of 1982 mentioned above. The decision of this Court having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the validity of the impugned tax is no longer res integra and cannot, therefore, be reviewed in these cases. 10. To sum up we hold in agreement with the decision in Kendriya Nagrik Samiti's case that the impugned tax is perfectly valid and that the same is leviable under Section 52 of the Act. We further hold that the levy under challenge is not a fee and, therefore not required to he supported by any specific service rendered to an individual. The tax in our opinion, being a tax on lands and buildings constituting premises is not dependent on supply of water or making provisions therefor to any individual. It is a general tax realisable for enabling the Jai Sansthan to discharge its functions and for effectuating the purpose for which it is established. 11. That takes us to the second question. It is a general tax realisable for enabling the Jai Sansthan to discharge its functions and for effectuating the purpose for which it is established. 11. That takes us to the second question. It turns upon the construction and effect of clause (h)(i) of Section 55 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. It reads : "Restriction of levy of taxes - The levy of taxes mentioned in Section 52 shall he subject to the following restrictions, namely (a) .................... (b) the water tax shall not he levied on any premises (i) of which no part is situate within the radius prescribed from the nearest stand-post or other water works at which water is made available to the public by the Jal Sansthan; or (ii) the annual value of which does not exceed rupees three hundred and sixty, and to which no water is supplied by the Jai Sansthan. (c) ............... 12. Incidently this provision also supports the premise that the water tax is a tax levied on premises. It is not a tax related directly or indirectly to the actual supply of water. However, Section 55 undoubtedly restricts the power of the Jai Sansthan to levy any taxes mentioned in Section 52 in the contingencies mentioned in clauses(a) to(c) of Section 55. Under clause (b)(i) water tax cannot be levied on any premises of which no part is situate within the radius prescribed from the nearest stand post or water-worksat which water is made available to the public by the Jai Sansthan. This provision clearly and unambiguously contemplates that water tax shall not be levied on any premises which are situate within a certain minimum radius. This radius was provisouly prescribed as 100 meters. But by U.P. Act No. 10 of 19711 which became effective from 1-12-1977, the figure 100 meters' was substituted by the word "prescribed". Whether for the purposes of exemption of water tax the minimum radius was 100 meters or that prescribed by the rules would, however, not make any difference on the basic legislative intent behind Section 55 of the Act. The Legislature clearly contemplated and provided that water tax shall not he levied on those premises which lie within the radius prescribed under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 55. The Legislature clearly contemplated and provided that water tax shall not he levied on those premises which lie within the radius prescribed under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 55. More specifically, the obvious intendment was that a certain class of premises specified in Section 55 shall he immune from the water tax and sewerage tax. 13. That legislative mandate, we do venture to think, cannot he frustrated by the failure of the rule-making authority to prescribe the radius under sub-clause (i) of clause (h) of Section. 55. This is the precise complaint of the petitioners and we are convinced the complaint is not without basis. Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for the Jai Sansthan confirmed and conceded that the radius has not been prescribed even after 12 years since U.P. Act No. 10 of 1978 was passed. The result is that clause (b)(i) of Section 55 has been rendered otiose and nugatory because the respondents have chosen not to frame the rule. Whether the inaction is deliberate or otherwise we cannot say. But the result is the same. Section 55(h)(i) stands for all practical purposes deleted so to say vis-a-vis this Jal Sansthan. 14. The result of the failure of the rule- making authority to frame a rule prescribing the radius under clause (b)(i) of Section 55 is that the premises which would otherwise be entitled to he exempt from the tax under that provision has been brought within the tax. There is no minimum radius as at present so that whether there is any stand post or water- works for not anywhere nearby the premises sought to be taxed, the Jai Sansthan has been left free to impose the tax on such premises. 15. Such a result, we do think, cannot have been contemplated by the Legislature. Each petitioner has asserted that there is no stand post or other water-works capable of supplying water to the petitioners within the radius of two miles from the petitioners' factory. There is no categorical denial of this fact in the counter affidavits. It is, however, unnecessary to give any concluded finding on this factual aspect in the view we are taking, namely, that till the rule-making authority prescribes the radius contemplated under clause (h)li) of Section 55, the Jai Sansthan should he restrained from realising water tax from the petitioners. 16. It is, however, unnecessary to give any concluded finding on this factual aspect in the view we are taking, namely, that till the rule-making authority prescribes the radius contemplated under clause (h)li) of Section 55, the Jai Sansthan should he restrained from realising water tax from the petitioners. 16. In the end a feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Jai Sansthan to support the impugned demand on the strength of Section 99 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The provision lends no support to the respondent It enacts a transitory provision and states that any water tax or sewerage tax imposed by a Local Body in respect of any local area for which a Jal Sansthan has been constituted under Section IH before the date of such constitution, and, any notification, rule or bye law in relation to such tax or to the provision of water supply services immediately before the said elate the same shall continue in force until other provision or order is made by the Jai Sansthan under this Act. This will apply only if the Jal Sansthan had not made any provision for the imposition or assessment of the tax under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act. That, however, is not the case here. Provision had already been made under the present Act of 1975 for exemption premises from the water tax which were situate within the radius of 100 meters from the nearest stand post, which was subsequently substituted by the expression" within the radius prescribed". Further, acting under this provision the Jal Sansthan has already imposed the tax. Such a provision having been enacted and the tax having been imposed by the Jal Sansthan any previous law or bye law or rule made with respect to the predecessor Local Body cannot he pressed in aid under Section 99 of the Act. 17. The upshot is that the demand of water tax raised by the Jai Sansthan on the petitioners without minimum, radius having been prescribed by the rule-making authority under Section 55(b)(i) is unjust, unfair and without the authority of law and must, therefore, be quashed. 18. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned bills demanding water tax are quashed. 18. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned bills demanding water tax are quashed. The State Government, which is the rule-making authority under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 is directed to frame an appropriate rule prescribing the remedies in terms of Section 55(b)(i) of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 for the respondent Jai Sansthan as early as possible. We further direct that till such a rule is framed the respondent Jai Sansthan shall not levy and collect any water tax from the petitioners. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.