JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:-By this petition the petitioner has challenged the additional demand raised by the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC) on account of water charges for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-6-1989 by way of supplementary bills. 2. The petitioner is an industrial Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It owns a building situated at 42 G.D. Ambekar Marg, Wadala, Bombay. The said building consists of basement , ground and three upper stories. There are in all 14 Galas and/or units in the said building; some of these galas are used for commercial purposes and some for the purpose of printing press. The petitioner society was assessed to water charges by the BMC in respect of the above building at the rate applicable to printing presses which is lower than the rate applicable for commercial establishments. In the year 1989, BMC having discovered that the water supplied to the above premises was used not only for printing press but also for commercial purposes found that the rate charged by it was not correct. It therefore made a fresh calculation on the basis of the correct rates of water charges applicable to the petitioner under the Water Charges Rules framed by the Corporation and raised a supplementary bill for the period from 1-4-1982 to 4-4-1987. It may be expedient at this stage to mention that the rate applicable to the printing presses is specified in Rule 1.4.1. Upto 4 April, 1987 the rate applicable to printing presses was Rs. 30/- per 10,000 litres whereas the rate applicable to shops, offices, industrial estates etc. under Rule 1.5 was Rs. 40 per 10,000 litres. These rates were revised with effect from 5 April, 1987 to Rs. 45 per 10,000 litres for premises used exclusively for printing press and Rs. 80 per 10,000 litres for premises falling under Rule 1.5. The BMC went on charging the petitioner at the rate applicable to printing press till 1989 when the mistake was discovered and the impugned supplementary bills issued. 3. The petitioner society objected to the supplementary demand. The objection having been turned down by the BMC, it approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. The BMC went on charging the petitioner at the rate applicable to printing press till 1989 when the mistake was discovered and the impugned supplementary bills issued. 3. The petitioner society objected to the supplementary demand. The objection having been turned down by the BMC, it approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the BMC was not justified in raising the additional demand from the year 1982 when it had itself been raising bills for water charges on the petitioner at the rate applicable to printing press. According to the counsel a part of the premises admittedly having been used for printing presses was rightly applied. The only dispute can be in regard to the user of water for other purposes and in such a situation it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to give a hearing to the petitioner and to bifurcate the user of water into user for printing presses and for commercial purposes and to revise the demand on that basis alone. 5. Learned Counsel for the BMC on the other hand submits that the Corporation was justified in recalculating the water charges at the higher rate applicable to commercial purposes prescribed under Rule 1.5.1 and issuing supplementary bill for the difference. Learned Counsel, in this connection, referred to Rule 1 which, inter alia, provides that if water supplied to any premises is used for different purposes for which separate rates are chargeable under different clauses of Rule 1 and no separate meters are installed to measure the water used for each such purpose, the highest rate chargeable for any such purpose shall apply to the whole quantity of water supplied to such premises. Learned Counsel submits that the admitted position in this case being that the premises were used both for printing press and for commercial purposes and no separate meters had been installed to measure the water used for each such purpose, the highest rate chargeable for any such purpose was applicable to the whole quantity of water supplied to the premises in question. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the exception to the above rule contained in Rule 2.3. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the exception to the above rule contained in Rule 2.3. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Rule 1 which provides for levying water charges for supply of water by meter measurement provides : "For premises in respect of which the Commissioner may determine to charge by meter measurement, the Standing Committee hereby prescribe the following rates at which water shall be charged for the various classes, provided that if water supplied to any premises is used for different purposes for which separate rates are chargeable under the different clauses of Rule 1 and no separate meters are installed to measure the water used for each such purpose, the highest rate chargeable for any such purpose shall apply to the whole quantity of water supplied to such premises subject, however, to the provisions of Rule 2.3." Rule 2.3 is in the following terms : "In the case of premises having the metered supply, if any part or parts of it are used for a purpose where the different rate or rates are chargeable and where separate meters cannot be fixed for any reason or for practical difficulties a compounded charge worked out at the appropriate rates on the estimated quantity of water consumed pro-rata to the rent or rateable value or on the basis of estimated quantity on requirement basis, may be recovered from the date of detention or granting of licence whichever is earlier at the discretion of the Hydraulic Engineer." 7. From a reding of the above rules it is clear that under Rule 1 in cases where the water supplied to any premises is used for different purposes for which different rates are chargeable under the different clauses of Rule 1 and no separate meters are installed to measure the water used for each such purpose, the highest rate chargeable for any such purpose would apply to the whole of the quantity of water supplied to such premises. The only exception to this rule are cases falling under Rule 2.3. It is evident from Clause 2.3 that it applies only to cases where "separate meter cannot be fixed for any reason or for practical difficulties to measure water used for different purposes". The only exception to this rule are cases falling under Rule 2.3. It is evident from Clause 2.3 that it applies only to cases where "separate meter cannot be fixed for any reason or for practical difficulties to measure water used for different purposes". Similarly Rule 2.4 which provides for levy of compounded charge in cases where the premises are used for different purposes for which different rates of water charges are applicable also applies only "where separation of supply to different users with separate meters is not practicable". It reads : "2.4 In case of premises having metered supply, if any part or parts thereof are used for a purpose where a rate or rates higher than that applicable to the premises are chargeable and where separation of supply to different users with separate meters is not practicable, a compounded charge at the following rates shall be recovered from the occupier of the trade premises in addition to the whole of the consumption by meter measurement being charged at the rate applicable at the discretion of the Hydraulic Engineer." 8. Evidently Rule 2.4 is not applicable in the instant case where there is nothing on record to show that separation of supply to different users with separate meters was not practicable. In such a situation, Rule 1 is clearly attracted and the BMC is entitled to charge at the highest rate chargeable for any of the purposes to the whole quantity of water supplied to the premises of the petitioner. 9. In view of the above position I do not find any infirmity in the action of the BMC in raising additional demand for water charges on the petitioner by issue of supplementary bills. 10. Learned Counsel for the BMC submits that if the petitioner wants to avail of the benefit of Rule 2.3 or 2.4, it is at liberty to apply to the BMC and if any such application is made the same shall be considered in accordance with the rules expeditiously. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be order as to costs. 12. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed.