R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is by members of Srinagar Society-respondent No. 3. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances: ( 2 ) THE petitioners as per their allegations in the petition have been alloted flats by the Gujarat Housing Board on certain terms and conditions. On such allotment they formed a Society known as Srinagar Society. Respondent no. 1 is the Estate Manager on behalf of the Gujarat Housing Board and in charge of the general management of the housing scheme of which the petitioners are the occupants. The petitioners grievance is that respondent No. 1 has made a demand of Rs. 3 23 580 as water charges from respondent No. 3 Association. Their further allegation is that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to charge only Rs. 5/- per month from the individual members as water charges. This is allegedly on the ground that the members of the Association are paying Rs. 15/- per month to the Association as service charges which include water charges Rs. 5 street light charges Rs. 5/- and sanitation charges Rs. 5/- and as the petitioners are paying Rs. 15/- per month to the Association they are not liable to make any payment as water charges nor the respondents are entitled to recover any amount more than Rs. 5/- on account of water charges from the petitioners. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 and 3 have chosen not to file any return but respondent no. 2 has filed return to the petition and also furnished an additional affidavit thereafter. ( 4 ) HAVING carefully gone through the material placed before me and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for respondent no. 21 am of the opinion that the petition is misconceived. ( 5 ) IT is apparent from the averments made in the return that water charges are to be levied by the State which is represented by respondent no. 2. So far as levy of water charges is concerned the Board or any of its officers or the Association of the petitioners have no say. The water charges are to be paid in accordance with the rates prescribed by the State. It is not in dispute that wherever the meters are not functioning a flat rate of Rs. 2. So far as levy of water charges is concerned the Board or any of its officers or the Association of the petitioners have no say. The water charges are to be paid in accordance with the rates prescribed by the State. It is not in dispute that wherever the meters are not functioning a flat rate of Rs. 15 was levied as water charges on the occupiers of each flat. It is that demand which is enforced by respondent no. 2 against respondent no. 3 which is representing all the occupants as their association. Therefore it is incorrect for the petitioners to contend that respondent No. 1 or respondent no. 3 have increased the water charges. It is also not under challenge that the State Government who has the authority to levy water charges has no authority to increase water charges from time to time. The authority of the State to charge at a flat rate in case of non-working of the meters is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in fact water meters of the housing scheme are not functioning. Therefore the demand raised by respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be unauthorised or illegal in any manner. ( 6 ) THE averment in the petition that respondents nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to charge Rs. 5/- per month from individual members as water charges is on the face of it misleading. Respondent no. 2 does not act on any agreement in the matter of levying water charges. He acts under the authority of the State as per the rules and raises the demand as per the rules fixed by the State Government. In that view of the matter the demand raised by respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be equated and kept at par. Once it is clear that the demand regarding water charges is within the province of the authority of respondent no. 2 the conclusion is inescapable that a valid demand raised by respondent no. 2 has to be met by the occupiers of the flats who utilise the water supply made by respondent no. 2. The liability to pay the demand raised on account of water charges to respondent no. 2 cannot depend upon any agreement between the third parties namely the petitioners or for that matter their Association and the Housing Board. 2 has to be met by the occupiers of the flats who utilise the water supply made by respondent no. 2. The liability to pay the demand raised on account of water charges to respondent no. 2 cannot depend upon any agreement between the third parties namely the petitioners or for that matter their Association and the Housing Board. That is a matter of contract between the two. ( 7 ) IT is also well settled that the petition under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be entertained for the enforcement of terms of agreement for alleged breaches thereof. ( 8 ) IN view of my aforesaid conclusions the levy of water charges by respondent No. 2 and the demand raised by him in respect thereof is totally authorised by law and the terms of agreement between respondent No. 1 and the petitioners ordinarily cannot be subject matter of Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief is vacated. Petition Dismissed. .