JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed against the action of the respondents and assessing the University under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. The charging section is Section-3 under which the cess is payable by every person carrying on any specified industry and every local authority. The university has been considered to be a local authority. The words "local authority" has been defined in clause 2(a) is as under : "2(a)-"local authority" means a municipal corporation or a municipal council (by whatever name called) or a cantonment board or any other body, entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law by or under which it is constituted." 2. From the above definition, it will be evident that the meaning of the words "local authority" under the said Act is referred to municipal corporation or municipal council or cantonment board or any other body entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law by or under which it is constituted. The definition does not make every body to be a local authority and according to the definition, it should be entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law by or under which it is constituted. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no water is supplied under law to any person nor under the Act by which the university is constituted is under obligation to supply the water. 3. Attention has also been invited to the statement of objects and reasons, which are as under "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS: The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has been enacted by Parliament under Article 252 of the Constitution with a view to control the pollution of rivers and streams which has assumed considerable importance and urgency in recent years as a result of increasing industrialisation and urbanisation. The Act is intended to ensure that the domestic and industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into water courses without adequate treatment. This act is now in force in fifteen States and in all Union territories. The other remaining States are also likely to adopt the Act in the near future. The Act is intended to ensure that the domestic and industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into water courses without adequate treatment. This act is now in force in fifteen States and in all Union territories. The other remaining States are also likely to adopt the Act in the near future. (2) According to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government and the State Governments have to provide funds to the Central Board and State Board for prevention and control of water pollution respectively, for implementing the provisions of the Act. However, due to pressure on the limited resources, the State Governments are not able to provide adequate funds to the State Boards for their effective functioning. It is therefore, proposed to levy a cess on local authorities which are entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law by or under which they are constituted and on certain specified industries. The cess proposed to be levied will be on the basis of the water consumed by such local authorities and industries. The cess will be collected by the State Governments concerned and will be paid to the Central Government and the Central Government, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law, will pay, having regard to the amount of cess collected by the concerned State Governments, such sums of money as it may think fit to the Central Board and the State Boards." 4. It is submitted that the University is not an industry and not causing any pollution. The assessment order which have (sic) been framed is said to be un-signed. 5. In the reply submitted, it is stated that the remedy is provided under section 13 of the Act which has not been availed of. Disputed questions of law are involved. The University is supplying water to its own department, colleges, employees and students, and is therefore a local authority. 6. I have considered over the matter. The word "supply" which has been used under Clause-2 (a) referred to supply of water by one person to another. If the water is provided to one person to himself or to its employees it cannot be said that there is a supply. The word "supply" have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Vs. If the water is provided to one person to himself or to its employees it cannot be said that there is a supply. The word "supply" have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Vs. State of Bihar, 1956 - 4 STC 58 , and it was observed that the word 'supply' is not to be given its literal meaning but must be interpreated in a qualified sense. 'Supply' is merely a form of sale and despatch and unless there was sale there was no supply of goods. Though it was a matter under the Sales Tax Law but, it was considered that the supply should be with the element of sale. The supply which is here contemplated must be to a different person and had charges being realised. The University cannot be considered to be a 'body' entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law to any other person. If the Water is being provided to its own department or its employees it cannot be considered that it amounts to supply by way of obligation under law or any statutory obligation under-which it is constituted. No provisions of the Act have been brought to the notice of this Court. In these circumstances, the assessment order which have been framed cannot be considered to be in accordance with law, the same is quashed.Petition allowed. *******