JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J. - Both the above writ petitions have been filed challenging the notice dated 20th March, 1982 which is a composite notice of demand towards excess water charges in respect of Elgin Mills No. 1 and Elgin Mill No. 2, issued by the General Manager. Jal Sansthan, Kanpur and as such, they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition No. 3610 of 1982 shall be treated as the leading case. 2. The case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 3610 of 1982 which has been filed by M/s. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. (Mill No. 2). in brief, is that initially Municipal Board. Kanpur used to supply water to it which was later on declared as Nagar Mahapalika. After the enactment of U. P. Water Supply and Sewarage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a Jal Sansthan was constituted under Section 18 for the local area of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the Sansthan was given independent charge of supplying water. The petitioner is supplied water for industrial purposes by the Sansthan through two separate supply lines which are recorded by Meter No. CWN-2 and Meter No. 6i0329. It is alleged that meters were defective and meter No. CWW-2 was replaced in November, 1980 but even This meter did not record correct reading. The petitioner had sent a letter to respondent no. 1 in June, 1980 pointing out that the demand of excess charges was not correct. Respondent No. 1 sent bills Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 dated February 7, 1981 with regard to excess water supplied through connection having meter No. CWW-2 in which an amount of Rs. 48,511-50 was mentioned as "old dues". Similarly bills No. 11 and 12 of the same date were sent with regard to excess water charges for the connection having meter No. 610329 in which an amount of Rs. 47,527-50 was sanctioned as "old dues". The payment of all these bills was to be made by February 21, 1981. After receipt of these bills, the petitioner pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the same were wrong and incorrect. However, on March 20, 1982, a notice of demand was sent by respondent No. 1 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. The payment of all these bills was to be made by February 21, 1981. After receipt of these bills, the petitioner pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the same were wrong and incorrect. However, on March 20, 1982, a notice of demand was sent by respondent No. 1 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,40,184.60 towards excess water charges in respect of Elgin Mill No. 2 and it was further mentioned that in case, the payment was not made by March 23, 1982, water supply will be disconnected. The case of the petitioner further is that a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- was thereafter given to respondent No. 1 and the petitioner has thus paid an excess amount. The prayer made in this writ petition, is that demand notice dated March 20, 1982 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent No. 1 to correct the bills, replace the defective meter and not to make demand for the period of Lock out i.e. September, 1980. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jal Sansthan, Kanpur and its case, in brief, is that the petitioner is in arrears of water and sewarage tax which was payable upto 31-3-1981 to Nagpur Mahapalika, Kanpur and also w.e.f 3-4-1981 till date to the Jal Sansthan. A sum of Rs. 38,803.00 as arrears of water tax upto 31-3-1981 and a further sum of Rs. 50,365.00 was due from the petitioner to Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. In addition, the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 71,438.56 towards water and sewarage tax for the year 1981-82 and a sum of Rs. 3,44,49.05 towards excess water charges to the Jal Sansthan. The case of the respondents further is that bill for excess water charges from the supply line which had a defective meter was prepared on the basis of average consumption of the last several years the petitioner and the quantity of water for which the bill had been sent, has not been increased from the past consumption which was recorded by the meter, when the same was in working condition. Regarding the month of September, 1980, the plea of the respondents is that the petitioner did not furnish any material in support of its claim that the factory had remained closed or there was a lock out in the said period and as such, there was no material to substantiate the petitioner's claim. In paras 18 and 19 of the counter-affidavit, it is asserted that payment of the cheque of Rs. 2,00,006/- issued by the petitioner was got stopped by it and as such the Jal Sansthan has not received any amount. The case of respondent further is that the bills issued by it were perfectly correct and in accordance with law and they did not suffer from any illegality. 4. The case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 3611 of 1982 which is with regard to Mill No. 1 is that meters No. 2032/CWW-3 and meter No. 43796 have been installed on supply lines for the domestic purposes and meter No. 220315 has been installed for recording supply for industrial purposes i.e. to the factory. Meter recording consumption of water for industrial purposes was defective and the bills were being sent to the petitioner on the basis of wrong reading. The petitioner had sent a cheque for Rs. 15,000/- in March, 1981. The bills No. 15,16,17 and 18 dated February 12, 1981 issued by respondent No. 1 were incorrect and wrong as some amount was shown as 'old dues'. A composite notice of demand dated March, 20, i982 was sent to the petitioner wherein a sum of Rs. 2,11,170-445 was shown as excess water charges in respect of mill No. 1 and the said demand notice is illegal. The Jal Sansthan has filed a counter-affidavit raising substantially the same pleas which are raised in W. P. No. 3610 of 1982. The case of the Jal Sansthan is that the petitioner was in arrears of water and sewarage tax both to the Nagar Mahapalika and to the Jal Sansthan. Kanpur. With regard to meter which is defective, the bill had been prepared on that basis of average consumption of last several years of the company and the average amount so calculated has not increased from the actual consumption recorded by meter in the earlier years when the same was working. It is asserted that total amount due from the petitioner with regard to Mill No. 1 was Rs. 3.09,737-00. It is asserted that total amount due from the petitioner with regard to Mill No. 1 was Rs. 3.09,737-00. 5. We have heard Sri V. B. Singh and Shri B. R. Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Shukla for the respondents and have also perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Bill Nos. 7 to 12 dated February 7, 1981 sent by the Jal Sansthan are incorrect and the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the amount mentioned in the aforesaid bills. Copies of these bills have been filed as Annexures-5 to 10 to the writ petition. The record shows that bill Nos. 7, 8 and 9 dated February, 7, 1981 have been issued with regard to supply made through meter No. CWW-2. In all these bills it is mentioned that meter is defective. Bill No. 7 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition is for the period April to June. 1980. In each month the amount of water consumption was shown as 5880167 litters and the excess water charges, after giving allowance to the admissible deductions on the basis of water tax, has been shown as Rs. 7,964-91. In this very bill, an amount of Rs. 69760-07 has been shown as arrears towards excess water charges for the period November, 1979 to March 3980. The bills No. 8 and 9 which are also for the supply made through meter No. CWW-2 are for the period July to September, 1980 and October, to December, 1980. These bills are exactly similar to bill No. 7 In these bills also it is mentioned that meter is defective, the amount of water consumed is mentioned as 5880167 litters and the price of the excess water consumed after giving allowance to admissible deductions on the basis of water tax is mentioned as Rs. 7664-91. The arrears amount of Rs. 69760-07 for *he period November, 1979 to March, 1980 has been repeated in all these bills. Bill Nos. 10, 11 and 12 dated February 7, 1981 are with regard to supply made through meter No. 610329 and it is clearly mentioned in the bills that the meter was correct. Each bill is for the period of 3 months beginning from April, 1980 to December, 1980. The quantity of water supplied and the price thereof, has been mentioned in each month. Besides that an amount of Rs. Each bill is for the period of 3 months beginning from April, 1980 to December, 1980. The quantity of water supplied and the price thereof, has been mentioned in each month. Besides that an amount of Rs. 47, 527-50 has been shown as arrears for the period November, 1979 to March 1988 in all the bills. Since these bills relate to meter No. 10329, which is not alleged to be defective, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the same. 7. The bills show that supply line of meter No. CWW-2 is of 3 inches diameter while as supply line of meter No. 610329 is of 4 inches diameter. The bills further show that cost of the water of one month through supply line having meter No. 610329 has varied between Rs. 3.0,227-00 to Rs. 10,657-00 in the period April, 1980 to December, 1980. Since the supply line of meter No. CWW-2 is of 3 inches diameter the quantity of water supplied would be proportionately less. The bills issued for excess water charges for the water supplied through meter No. CWW-2 are for Rs. 7964-60 for each month. Looking to the size of water connection these bills do not appear to be arbitrary or exorbitant as they are roughly three fourth of the amount charged for the supply made through meter No. 610329. 8. Thus, it is apparent that Bal Sansthan has prepared the bills with regard to supply made through defective meter No. CWW-2 on the footing that 5880167 litters of water has been consumed by the petitioner in each month. It is specifically asserted in the counter-affidavit that this figure has been aggrieved at on the basis of average consumption of several years as recorded by the meter when the same was working properly and was giving correct reading. Sub-section (11 of Section 59 of the Act provides that a Jal Sansthan shall by notification in gazette fix the cost of water to be sup lied by it according to its volume and also the minimum cost to be charged in respect of each connection. Sub-section (2) of Section 59 provides that a Jal Sansthan may, in lieu of charging the cost of water according to volume, accept a fixed sum of for a specified period on the basis of expected consumption of water during that period. Sub-section (2) of Section 59 provides that a Jal Sansthan may, in lieu of charging the cost of water according to volume, accept a fixed sum of for a specified period on the basis of expected consumption of water during that period. It is thus clear that the Act gives power to Jal Sansthan to accept a fixed sum on the basis of expected consumption of water in lieu of charging the cost on the basis of volume of water supplied. The Act thus, contemplates a situation where the cost of the water may not be realised on the basis of its actual volume as recorded by the meter, but on the basis of an assumed consumption or assumed quantity of supply. The procedure adopted by the Jal Sansthan in taking average of consumption for the last several years cannot be said to be illegal when the meter through which the supply was made was defective and was not giving correct reading. In our opinion, sub-sec. (2) of Section 59 of the Act permits the Jal Sansthan to adopt such a procedure namely to determine the quantity of water supplied by taking average of actual consumption of water of a long period, during which the meter was working and was showing correct quantity of supply. We have already seen above that the bill issued for excess water charges for the supply made through meter No. CWW-2 is roughly three fourth of the amount of supply made through meter No. 610329. Since the latter connection is of 4 inches diameter while as former is of 3 inches diameter, the quantity assumed to have been supplied by Jal Sansthan cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bills issued with regard to the supply made through meter No. CWW-2 are incorrect or illegal cannot, therefore, be accepted. 9. So far as Writ petition No. 3611 of 1982 is concerned the petitioner has not filed copy of any bills. It is, therefore, not possible to find out the criteria on the basis of which, the bills were issued to the petitioner and whether quantity of excise water supplied, which has been calculated on the basis of average consumption of last several years, as arbitrary or exorbitant. It is, therefore, not possible to find out the criteria on the basis of which, the bills were issued to the petitioner and whether quantity of excise water supplied, which has been calculated on the basis of average consumption of last several years, as arbitrary or exorbitant. However, the stand of the Jal Sansthan in the (sic) meter was directive, it has taken into consideration the consumption of last several years and the average of such consumption has been made the basis for calculating the cost of the extra supply of water. We have already held that such a course is permissible under the provisions of the Act and the bills so issued by the Jal Sansthan cannot be held to be illegal. 10. Regarding the prayer made by the petitioner for quhshing the demand for the month of September, 1980 on the ground of alleged lock out in the factory, the case of the respondent No. 1 is that no material in support of the fact that factory was closed in the aforesaid period was furnished. In the writ petition also, the petitioner has not furnished any material whatsoever to show that there was a lock out or that the factory remained closed in September, 1980. In these circumstances, it is not possible to grant this relief to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of Bombay High Court in M/s. Nagpal Printing Mills v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1988 Bom. 91 in support of his contention that demand made by the Jal Sansthan with regard to supply made through the defective meter is illegal. In this case the question for consideration was as to whether Rule 3 (d) (i) of Water Charges and Sewarage and Waste Removal Rules was ultra vires. Section 169 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act empowered the Standing Committee to make rules to charge for the supply of water and by such rules to determine the water charges based on a measurement or estimated measurement of quantity of water supplied. Rule 3 (d) (i) provided that in case of Industries, for which a quote of water had been fixed, if the recorded or computed consumption fell short of 9/10th of the quota of water for any month, a consumption equal to 9/10th of the quota of water shall be charged. Rule 3 (d) (i) provided that in case of Industries, for which a quote of water had been fixed, if the recorded or computed consumption fell short of 9/10th of the quota of water for any month, a consumption equal to 9/10th of the quota of water shall be charged. The Court held that use of the word "supplies" showed that the Corporation could levy a water charge only in respect of water that had in fact been supplied to and consumed by the consumer and it was to levied on the basis of measurement or estimated measurement. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be of no assistance to him as the question involved in the said case was entirely different from the question involved in the present case. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Appex Court is reported in AIR 1.988 SC 1009. It was held as follows in para-8 of the report : "It appears that the supply referred to in Section 169 of the Act is a supply which is, in fact, supplied to the consumer and consumed by it. It is only that supply which can be measured. We are in agreement with the High Court that where the measuring device has failed to record the correct consumption, it may be estimated. The circumstances in which the measuring device could be said to have failed, the modes of estimation in such circumstances are provided for by Rule III (a), (b) and (c) of the Water Charges Rules. The Corporation cannot estimate and charge on the basis of water it makes available for use by a consumer. There is no warrant for such a construction." The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court show that where the meter is defective the correct consumption may be estimated. It is not the case of the petitioner that water was not supplied to it through the supply line having meter No. CWW-2 which was defective. On the contrary, the contention of the petitioner is that since the meter is defective, no demand should have been made from it. It is not the case of the petitioner that water was not supplied to it through the supply line having meter No. CWW-2 which was defective. On the contrary, the contention of the petitioner is that since the meter is defective, no demand should have been made from it. In our opinion, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner support the stand of respondent No. 1 to the effect that as the meter was defective, consumption of water was determined on the basis of average consumption of previous years. 12. There is another important aspect of the case which dis-entitles the petitioner to get any relief. The affidavit in support of writ petition No. 3610/82 has been filed by Shri V. N. Verma who has described himself as an employee in the legal department of the petitioner company and was sworn on 30-3-1982. The petition was got reported from the office of Stamp Reporter on the same day and was admitted on 31-3-1982 and an interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from taking any steps to recover the amount mentioned in the demand notice dated 20th March. 1980 and from disconnecting the petitioner's water connection. The paras-24 to 26 of the writ petition read as follows : Para-24 : "That the petitioner having received this letter issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) and also pointed out the defects in the reading and the defects in the billing in which the same amount was demanded in every bill. Para-25 : "That the petitioner has, thus, paid in all Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. two lacs fifty thousand) towards costs, and water charges to respondent No. 1. The wrong amount mentioned in the repeated bills comes to* Rs. 9?,022-80 in respect, of meter No. CWW-2 and Rs. 95055/-in respect of Meter No, 610329. Total of the amount paid in each i.e. rupees two lacs fifty thousand plus Rs 1,92,077-80 comes to Rs. 4,42077-80 which exceeds the demand made by respondent No. 1 for Rs. 4,40,184-60." Para 26 : "That if the amount paid is taken into account and wrong billing is corrected then nothing remains due to the petitioner to respondent No. 1 and on the other hand the amount paid by the petitioner as excess amount comes to Rs. 2600/-. 13. 4,42077-80 which exceeds the demand made by respondent No. 1 for Rs. 4,40,184-60." Para 26 : "That if the amount paid is taken into account and wrong billing is corrected then nothing remains due to the petitioner to respondent No. 1 and on the other hand the amount paid by the petitioner as excess amount comes to Rs. 2600/-. 13. In the grounds as well, it was pleaded that if all the payments made by the petitioner are taken into consideration, nothing will be found due from the petitioner to respondent No 1. In paras-18 and 19 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the petitioner issued a post dated cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 29-3-1982. After the interim order was passed by this Court on 31-3-1982, payment of the cheque was got stopped by the petitioner. In para-18 of the re-joinder affidavit, assertions made in the counter-affidavit have not been denied. On the contrary, it is admitted that after the interim order had been passed, the payment was stopped as the petitioner was of the view that if the payments were corrected, the amount of demand made by the respondent No. l will come to a lower figure. 14. The facts mentioned above show that the petitioner made a clear averment in the writ petition that it had paid Rs. 2,00,000 to respondent No. 1. In para-25 of the writ petition, has been asserted that total amount already paid by the petitioner exceeds the demand made by the respondent No. 1. It was on these facts that the writ petition was admitted by this Court on 31-3-1982 and an interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner. However taking advantage of the stay order, the petitioner subsequently got the payment of the cheque slopped. Thus, it is clear that not only the averments made in paras 24 and 25 of the writ petition are absolutely false, but the petitioner has played fraud with the Court. It is true that after respondent No. 1 filed a counter-affidavit and moved an application for vacating the interim order, the learned Single Judge who heard the interim matter, passed another order on 13-10-1982 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and furnish security for the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with regard to both Elgin Mill No. 1 and Mill No. 2. 2,00,000/- and furnish security for the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with regard to both Elgin Mill No. 1 and Mill No. 2. However, when the writ petition was heard for admission, the petitioner had made a wrong statement of fact the petitioner used a very clever device of giving post dated cheque to respondent No. 1, obtaining admission of the writ petition and an interim order on its basis and subsequently getting the payment of the cheque stopped. The affidavit in support of the writ petition has been filed by a person who has described himself as an employee in the legal department of the petitioner's company, who, we can presume, is well versed with the sanctity of the affidavit and is not an illiterate person or a person not knowing anything about legal affairs. This Court exercises an equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a person seeking relief from this Court must come with clean hands. It is fundamental principle that if the applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution, is guilty of suppression of material fact in his petition and if an attempt is made to mislead the Court, the petition is liable to be rejected. The power under Article 226 is discretionary one and the Court will refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of a person w ho makes a false statement or suppresses material facts in the petition. As shown above, the petitioner has deliberately made a false statement in the writ petition and mislead the Court and thereby obtained admission of the writ petition as well as an interim order in its favour. In view of this conduct of the petitioner, we are of the opinion, that it is not entitled to any relief from this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 15. By the demand notice dated March 20, 1982, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 2,11,170-48 in respect of Elgin Mill No. 1 and Rs. 440184-60 in respect of Elgin Mill No. 2 towards the excess water charges by March 23, 1982. Due to the stay order passed by this Court, the Jal Sansthan, Kanpur has been deprived of its lawful dues for a considerably long period. 2,11,170-48 in respect of Elgin Mill No. 1 and Rs. 440184-60 in respect of Elgin Mill No. 2 towards the excess water charges by March 23, 1982. Due to the stay order passed by this Court, the Jal Sansthan, Kanpur has been deprived of its lawful dues for a considerably long period. The Jal Sansthan is discharging a public duty, namely, supplying water to the inhabitants of City of Kanpur and it need funds to carry on the activity as enjoined by the Act. The petitioner has retained the money in its possession which was lawfully payable to the Jal Sansthan In these circumstances, we direct that the petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 10% on the amount which is payable to the Jal Sansthan till the date of payment. This interest will be calculated w. e.f. 1-4-1982 on the entires amount and subsequently on the balance amount if Rs. 2,00,000/- been paid by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 13-10-1982. We are supported in our view by a recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Sohan Lal & Company v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, AIR 1991 SC 1592 . In this case, a plot of laud was allotted to the appellant by Delhi Development Authority and a dispute arose regarding the price of the plot. The appellant paid at the rate of Rs. 22/- per square yard, although the D. D. A. claimed that the price was Rs. 57/- per square yard. The recovery of balance amount was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner. When the appeal was dismissed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the balance amount. 16. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim orders passed in favour of the