PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) THE issue in controversy is undoubtedly alive inspite of the three Constitution Bench decisions of the Honble Supreme Court In re, Sea Customs Act, AIR 1963 SC 1760 , D. G. Gouse, AIR 1980 SC 217 and New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1997 SC 2847 and the two other decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Purna Municipal Council and others, (1992) 1 SCC 100 , followed in Ranchi Municipal Corporation v. State and others, C. A. No. 3646 of 1996, decided on 16. 2. 1996. ( 2 ) JAL Sansthan, Allahabad, having been created under the provisions of U. P. Water Supply and sewerage Act, 1975 (for short the Water Supply Act) has issued a demand notice to the petitioner Union of India, Divisional Manager N. Rly. , Allahabad and Divisional Superintending engineer N. Rly. , Allahabad, for a sum of Rs. 26,23,360. 73p. as water and sewer charges. Since the demands were refused or at least not honoured by the petitioner, the Jal Sansthan have taken recourse to Section 64 of the Water Supply Act for getting the amount recovered through recovery certificate by getting the service of the revenue officials, upon which a citation has been issued against the petitioner seeking to realize by the modes available under the Recovery Laws for the said sum of Rs. 26,23,360. 73 plus recovery charges at the rate of 10%. ( 3 ) THE writ petition was filed against the aforesaid recovery proceedings in this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India on 19. 2. 2000 when this Court entertained the same, issued notice to the respondents calling counter-affidavit from them and in the meantime stayed the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid R. C. and citation. Affidavits have been filed in reply by the Jal Sansthan as also by the petitioner in rejoinder-affidavit, and as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of on merits finally at the admission stage. ( 4 ) IT may be stated here that the writ petition carries with it 14 paragraphs in pleadings. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition allege that the Jal Sansthan is seeking to realize the said sum of Rs. ( 4 ) IT may be stated here that the writ petition carries with it 14 paragraphs in pleadings. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition allege that the Jal Sansthan is seeking to realize the said sum of Rs. 26 lacs and odd as sewerage charges on railway properties situated at Allahabad, further averring that the said demand related to 3,125 seats at the rates notified under the notification issued in pursuance of the Water Supply Act gazetted on 19. 11. 1994. The demand notice dated 1. 7. 1999, the citation dated 20. 12. 1999 and the aforesaid notification dated 15. 11. 1999 are the three annexures averred through the aforesaid four paragraphs. In paragraphs 5 and 6, the petitioners allege that "the petitioners were holding the property of the Central government for which the service charges were not payable under Article 285 (1) of the constitution of India having been exempted to pay local taxes and charges". It has further been averred that "allahabad Jal Sansthan is an instrumentality of State of U. P. and the procedure regarding exemption from payment of taxes on Central Government property to local bodies are covered under the provisions of Rules made in accordance with Article 285 of the Constitution of India. " ( 5 ) A very relevant paragraph exists as paragraph 7, which for ready reference, is being quoted below : "7. That, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 referred the matter to Headquarters Office Northern railway, New Delhi, for seeking approval from the Ministry of Railway, Government of India since it was a policy matter to be decided at Ministry level. A true copy of letter dated 10. 12. 1999 addressed to Headquarters Office is annexed as Annexure-4 to this petition. " ( 6 ) IN paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, it has been stated that the calculation has been made without reconciling the actual services rendered. The stand of the Jal Sansthan that they will disconnect the services, if the payment is not made is uncalled for, the said disconnection if done will result in health hazard and the R. C. /citation be stayed till the matter is resolved between the Ministry of Railways and Government of U. P. The letter to the respondent No. 4 written by the petitioner on 6. 1. 2000 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 1. 2000 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. ( 7 ) IN paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the case of Ranchi Municipal corporation (supra) lays down that the Municipality had no right to demand service charges from the Government of India and while holding so it has followed the earlier decision in Puma municipal Committee (supra) and a copy of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexure-7. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 are formal paragraphs while paragraph 17 narrates four grounds upon which this petition was filed which are narrated below for ready reference : " (i) Because the respondents cannot raise demand for service charges on Central Government properties in view of the exemption under Article 285 (1) of the Constitution of India and the same is untenable. (ii) Because in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Municipal corporation and others, (1992) 1 SCC 100 and in Union of India v. Ranchi Municipal corporation in Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 1996, the local bodies cannot demand taxes by way of service charges on Union Government property and the petitioners will not liable to pay the impugned charges. (iii) Because the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the authority on the basis of which he has served the notice of demand. (iv) Because the issue is to be resolved at the level of State Government and the Central government to whom the matter has been referred and the respondent No. 2 has been requested to pend the said recovery till the decision of the Government of India. " ( 8 ) SRI G. P. Agarwal assisted by Sri H. P. Pandey has been heard at extensive length in support of the petitioner. Sri Arun Tandon assisted by Sri R. N. Saggi for the Jal Sansthan, Sri S. C. Rai, additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Smt. Archana Srivastava have appeared for the state of U. P. and have opposed the petition orally though no counter-affidavit has been filed by the State of U. P. , they said that they are adopting the arguments and the averments made through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Jal Sansthan. ( 9 ) THE controversy, therefore, narrows down to the interpretation of the language of Article 285 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) THE controversy, therefore, narrows down to the interpretation of the language of Article 285 of the Constitution of India. It is undoubtedly true that the two decisions one in Purna Municipal council, and other in Ranchi Municipal Corporation noted above, dealt with the matters taken up by the Union of India to the Apex Court relating to demand which were said to be taxes and service charges. It is not in dispute that railways through their various activities of running, maintaining and repairing the engines, bogies and extending railway facilities through the railway stations and also maintaining residential quarters for huge staff because of which may be, the other name of the Indian Railways being one of the biggest employer of this country, consumes bulk water supply from the water suppliers and in the instant case, it is the Jal sansthan. Allahabad, which is supplying the said bulk of water stock. Jal Sansthan is also catering to the need of maintaining the sewerage system not only at the railway stations but in the adjoining areas and also the residential quarters, offices, godowns, shades all being maintained by the Union of India through the Railways. ( 10 ) SRI Agarwal, therefore, vehementally said and sincerely argued that there is now no scope left to this Court to go beyond what the Honble Supreme Court has laid down in the aforesaid two decisions. He further supported his arguments by referring to Section 184 of the Railways act, 1989. Sri Agarwal particularly emphasized the sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 184, which for ready reference are quoted below : "184. Taxation on railways by local authorities.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, a railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the Central Government, by notification declares the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax specified in such notification. (2) While a notification of the Central Government under sub-section (1) is in force, the railway administration shall be liable to pay to the local authority either the tax specified in the notification or, in lieu thereof, such sum, if any, as an officer appointed in this behalf by the central Government may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, from time to time, determine to be fair and reasonable. " (3) not quoted. (4) not quoted. ( 11 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it will be pointed out that Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989, is in pari materia with Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which has been referred to in paragraph of the decision in Purna Municipal Council (supra ). The law laid down by the honble Supreme Court is contained in paragraph 5 of the said decisions which is quoted below for ready reference : "5. The aforesaid provision, existing as it is, in terms permits taxation of railways by the local authority in the manner given therein ; the Central Government being the controlling and the regulating authority permitting liability at a given point of time, its extent and manner. The indian Railways Act being a Central enactment has no role to play in sub-article (2) of Article 185, for that is a sphere in which the State legislation operates. The reasoning of the High Court to oust the applicability of Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act on the test of sub-article (2) of article 185 was totally misplaced, as also in not venturing to create room for it in sub-article (1)of Article 285. The interplay of the Constitutional and legal provisions being well cut and well defined requires no marked elaboration to stress the point. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment and order of the High Court, and issue the writ and direction asked for in favour of the Union of India restraining the respondent council from raising demands on the railway in regard to service charges. We make it clear that the rights of the local authority as flowing under Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, stand preserved in the event of the central Government moving into the matter, if not already moved. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. " ( 12 ) LIKEWISE emphasis was laid by Sri Agarwal on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the following paragraph was highlighted : "the controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Union of India v. Puma Municipal council and others, (1992) 1 SCC 100 , had held that Section 135 of the Railways Act is subject to the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution. This Court in Union of India v. Puma Municipal council and others, (1992) 1 SCC 100 , had held that Section 135 of the Railways Act is subject to the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondent, Municipality was restrained from demanding any payment by way of service charges from the railways. Shri M. P. Jha learned counsel appearing for the Municipality sought to rely on clause (4) of Section 135 of the Railway Act which contemplates a contract. In this case the contract now sought to be relied upon is only to relieve distress warrant pending disposal of the dispute in the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be construed that there is any contract between the Union of India and the municipality. In view of the fact that the Municipality has no right to demand service charges from the Union of India, the demand made by the Municipality is clearly ultra vires its power. " ( 13 ) HAVING referred to the aforesaid two paragraphs, Shri Agarwal contended that it was not possible for the Jal Sansthan in the instant case to demand the service charges from the petitioner because such a demand was a demand relating to the property of the Central Government and therefore, it was barred by the provisions of Article 185 of the Constitution of India. Sri Arun tandon and Sri Saggi for the Jal Sansthan started their arguments by referring to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee (supra) as is contained in paragraph 176 thereof which is quoted below : "176. Before parting with this case, it would be appropriate to refer to a submission of Sri B. Sen. He submitted that the exemption provided by clause (1) of Article 289 does not and cannot apply to compensatory taxes like water tax, drainage tax and so on. Even where the enactment does not specifically and individually enumerate these components of property taxes, i. e. where the levy is of a composite tax known as "property Tax" it must be presumed, says Sri B. Sen, that part of the property taxes are compensatory in nature. We are, however, not inclined to express any opinion on this aspect in the absence of any material placed in support thereof. We are, however, not inclined to express any opinion on this aspect in the absence of any material placed in support thereof. We cannot permit this new plea, does not appear to be a pure question of law, to be raised for the first time at the time of arguments in these appeals/ writ petition. " ( 14 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid paragraphs, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that clause 1 of Article 289 would not permit denial to pay the compensatory tax like water tax, drainage tax etc. The Union of India in the instant case should not be permitted to take shelter behind the language of Article 285 of the Constitution of India for denying the legitimate claim of the Jal Sansthan. It is based on actual services rendered and the actual cost of water supply. ( 15 ) IN this connection. Sri Arun Tandon, drew attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit whereby, it is, according to him, established that this demand by Jal Sansthan or its erstwhile predecessor in power has been a continuous process not only for Allahabad railway station but on other railway stations and offices of the railway department situated here and there in the city of Allahabad and they have been regularly making those payments. The honouring of the bills submitted by the Jal Sansthan have been uninterrupted. According to Sri tandon, in fact he said that, the Jal Sansthan is amazed with the objections raised because the specific averments in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit have not been denied by the petitioners rather they have pleaded thereof an escapist argument so that a legitimate liability is wiped out by taking shelter behind different legal terminology. For ready reference, paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit as filed by the Jal Sansthan is quoted below : "6. The position as it stands now is that wherever service rendered by local bodies in respect of central Government properties are measured like, metered water supply of electricity etc. or where services like drainage and scavenging etc. are charged for separately, they will be paid for accordingly. The percentage specified in the letter dated 29. 3. 1967 are applicable in cases where such charges are not specifically metered or charge for separately but from part of the consolidated property tax. or where services like drainage and scavenging etc. are charged for separately, they will be paid for accordingly. The percentage specified in the letter dated 29. 3. 1967 are applicable in cases where such charges are not specifically metered or charge for separately but from part of the consolidated property tax. " ( 16 ) IN order to clinch this issue right now, the reply of the petitioner as contained in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit is also reproduced herein below : "8. That the contents of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit are concerned, it is submitted that the payments as alleged in the said paragraphs cannot become a law or vest any right for the respondent to recover amount as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition, till the matter is settled between the State Government and Central Government. " There is, therefore, no doubt and not disputed by the petitioners that the demands, which have been made instantly are based upon the regular demands of the Jal Sansthan not only of allahabad Railway Stations but of other railway stations, offices, etc. ( 17 ) BEFORE coming to actual discussion part, it may be pointed out that Sri Agarwal also made at reference to an order of the Lucknow Bench of this Court wherein the learned counsel for the nagar Nigam appearing therein in a similar type of writ petition made a statement that the demand was not to be enforced upon which statement, a stay order has been granted, Sri agarwal said that this Court should follow the same. ( 18 ) COMING now to discussions, the last argument may be dealt with at hand. The aforesaid stay order of the Lucknow Bench was based upon a concession of a lawyer, therefore, it need not to be taken to be of any precedential or persuasive value. ( 19 ) THE factual issue as noted above is also hereby decided in favour of Jal Sansthan that the demand which they have made through the instant recovery certificate and citation has been issued by the Recovering Officials, is based upon similar demands having been made in previous years and even this year for other railway stations and offices etc. therefore, the demand is not new. therefore, the demand is not new. ( 20 ) COMING now to the question whether the demand by the Jal Sansthan is on the property of the central Government or it is on the services rendered as it will be quite apart from a tax on a property, the exact language of the Article 205 has to be noted. Since the decision in the New delhi Municipal Committee is based upon the language used in Article 289, the said article is also quoted herein below : "285. Exemption of property of the Union from State Taxation.-- (1) The property of the Union shall, save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provides, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall, until Parliament by law otherwise provided, prevent any authority within a State from levying any tax on any property of the Union to which such property was immediately before the commencement of this Constitution liable is treated as liable, so long as that tax continues to be levied in that State. " "289. Exemption of property and income of a State from Union taxation.-- (1) The property and income of a State shall be exempt from Union taxation. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent the Union from imposing, or authorising the imposition of, any tax to such extent, if any, as Parliament may by law provide in respect of a trade or business of any kind carried on by, or on behalf of the Government of a State, or any operations connected therewith, or any property used or occupied for the purposes of such trade or business, or any income accruing or arising in connection therewith. (3) Nothing in clause (2) shall apply to any trade or business, or to any class of trade or business, which Parliament may by law declare to be incidental to the ordinary functions of Government. " ( 21 ) AGAIN before proceeding further, it may be stated here that on principle, the bar on the State government to impose any tax on a property of the Central Government has to be equated with the bar imposed upon the Central Government from imposing any tax on the property or income of the State Government as envisaged by Articles 285 and 289 of the Constitution of India respectively. It may be further pointed out that N. D. M. C. (supra) decision where four Honble judges have held the minority view and five Honble Judges have held the majority views, both views have relied upon in the decision in D. G. Gouse (supra) and also the decision in Sea customs (supra ). ( 22 ) COMING now to the decision in Sea Customs, it may be pointed out that distinction stated clearly laid down between what may be taken to be a tax on the property of the Central government and what may be taken to be levy or duty or say a tax on some services rendered or imposed upon manufacture of articles, etc. ( 23 ) IN D. G. Gouse (supra), it has been held that : "the word "tax" in its widest sense includes all money raised by taxation. It, therefore, includes taxes levied by the Central and the State Legislatures, and also those known as "rates", or other charges, levied by local authorities under statutory powers. "taxation" has, therefore, been defined in clause (28) of Article 366 of the Constitution to include "imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or special", and it has been directed that tax shall be construed accordingly. " ( 24 ) COMING now to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in N. D. M. C. (supra) it has to be noted that their lordships held : "170. Advertising to the matters before us, the question is whether the Parliament has made any law as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 289? For, if no such law is made, it is evident, all the properties of State Governments in the Union Territory of Delhi would be exempt from taxation. (Parliament has admittedly not made any law as contemplated by clause (3) of Article 289 ). We have observed hereinbefore that the claim of exemption put forward by State governments in respect of their properties situated in N. D. M. C. and Delhi Municipal corporation areas is founded and cannot be founded on Article 289. The States invoke clause (1)of the article but we are of the considered opinion that clause (1) cannot be looked at in isolation it must be read subject to clause (2 ). All the three clauses of Article 289 are parts of one single scheme. The States invoke clause (1)of the article but we are of the considered opinion that clause (1) cannot be looked at in isolation it must be read subject to clause (2 ). All the three clauses of Article 289 are parts of one single scheme. Hence, when a claim for exemption with reference to clause (1) is made, one must see what is the field on which it operates and that can be determined only by reading it along with clause (2 ). The exemption provided by Article 289 (1) is a qualified one--qualified by clause (2), as explained hereinbefore, it is not an absolute exemption like the one provided by Article 285 (1 ). If there is a law within the meaning of clause (2), the field occupied by clause (1) gets curtailed to the extent specified in clause (2) and the law made thereunder. It is, therefore, necessary in this case to determine whether the Punjab Municipal Act. Delhi Municipal corporation Act and N. D. M. C. Act are or can be deemed to be enactments within the meaning of clause (2) of the Delhi Municipal corporation Act and N. D. M. C. Act are or can be deemed to be enactments within the meaning of clause (2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and N. D. M. C. Act, are post-constitutional enactments. As stated hereinbefore, these enactments while specifically exempting the Union properties in terms of Article 285, do not exempt the properties of the State in terms of Article 289. The omission cannot be said to be unintentional-particularly in the case of Delhi Municipal corporation Act and N. D. M. C. Act. The intention is clear and obvious ; the enactments do not wish to provide for any exemption in favour of properties of the State situated within their respective jurisdictions. Taxes are levied on all properties within their Jurisdiction (except the properties specifically exempted ). In such a situation, the question is, how should they be understood? Two views can be taken one that since the said enactments do not expressly purports to have been made under and as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 289, they should not be read and understood as laws contemplated by or within the meaning of the said clause (2 ). Two views can be taken one that since the said enactments do not expressly purports to have been made under and as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 289, they should not be read and understood as laws contemplated by or within the meaning of the said clause (2 ). The effect of this view would be that the properties of the State in Union Territory of Delhi will be totally exempt irrespective of the manner of their use and occupation. In other words, the consequence would be that the relevant provisions of the said enactments would be ineffective and unenforceable against all the properties held by the State in the Union Territory/national capital Territory of Delhi, irrespective of the nature of their user or occupation. " ( 25 ) HAVING held as aforesaid and also having dealt with the allied arguments, the Honble Apex court recorded following conclusions : " (a) the property taxes levied by and under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the New Delhi municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, constitute "union taxation" within the meaning of clause (1) of Article 289 of the Constitution of India. (b) the levy of property taxes under the aforesaid enactments on lands and/or buildings belonging to the State Government is invalid and incompetent by virtue of the mandate contained in clause (1) of Article 289. However, if any land or building is used or occupied for the purposes of any trade or business--trade or business as explained in the body of this judgment--carried on by or on behalf of the State Government, such land or building shall be subject to levy of property taxes levied by the said enactments. In other words. State property exempted under clause (1)means such property as is used for the purpose of the Government and not for the purposes of trade or business. (c) it is for the authorities under the said enactments to determine with notice to the affected state Government which land or buildings is used or occupied for the purposes of any trade or business carried on by or on behalf of that State Government. (c) it is for the authorities under the said enactments to determine with notice to the affected state Government which land or buildings is used or occupied for the purposes of any trade or business carried on by or on behalf of that State Government. " ( 26 ) COMING now to the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in n. D. M. C. (supra), it has already been noted above that their Lordship had not gone into the issue of applicability of Article 289 on taxes like water tax, drainage tax, etc. ( 27 ) SRI Arun Tandon placed strong reliance on the provisions contained in the Water Supply Act. He drew the attention of the Court especially to Sections 18, 24, 25, 52, 53, 59 and 60, which for ready reference are reproduced below : "18. Establishment of Jal Sansthans.-- (1) If in the opinion of the State Government, local conditions so require and it is considered necessary or expedient for the improvement of water supply and sewerage services in any area, it may constitute a body to be known as Jal Sansthan for that area. (2) A Jal Sansthan shall be constituted by notification in the Gazette and with effect from the date specified therein. (3) A Jal Sansthan not being a Jal Sansthan referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 20 may be constituted under sub-section (1) to have jurisdiction over the local area or any part, therefore, of one or more local bodies as the State Government may specify in the said notification. (4) A Jal Sansthan shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the name of " (short name of the area specified in the said notification)Jal Sansthan" and have the power to acquire, hold, or dispose of property. (5) Jal Sansthan shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local authority. (6) A Jal Sansthan shall have its head office at the place specified in the notification under sub-section (1 ). (7) A Jal Sansthan may also have sub-offices at such places within its jurisdiction as it may consider necessary. (5) Jal Sansthan shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local authority. (6) A Jal Sansthan shall have its head office at the place specified in the notification under sub-section (1 ). (7) A Jal Sansthan may also have sub-offices at such places within its jurisdiction as it may consider necessary. (8) The State Government may, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, by notification in the Gazette, and with effect from the date specified in the notification (a) include any area in or exclude any area from, the area of a Jal Sansthan specified in the notification under sub-section (1 ). (b) divide the area of a Jal Sansthan specified in the notification under sub-section (1) into area of two or more separate Jal Sansthans. (c) amalgamate the areas of two or more Jal Sansthans specified in the notification under sub-section (1) into the area of one Jal Sansthan ; or (d) declare that any part in the area of a Jal Sansthan specified in the notification under sub-section (1) shall cease to be such area. 24. Functions of Jal Sansthan.--The functions of a Jal Sansthan shall be as follows : (i) to plan, promote and execute schemes of and operate an efficient system of water supply ; (ii) where feasible, to plan, promote and execute schemes of, and operate, sewerage, sewage treatment and disposal and treatment of trade effluents ; (iii) to manage all its affairs so as to provide the people of the area within its jurisdiction with wholesome water and where feasible, efficient sewerage service ; (iv) to take such other measures, as may be necessary, to ensure water supply in times of any emergency ; (v) such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the State Government by notification in the gazette. 25. Powers of a Jal Sansthan.-- (1) Every Jal Sansthan shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to do anything which may be necessary or expedient for carrying out its functions under this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision such powers shall include the power. 25. Powers of a Jal Sansthan.-- (1) Every Jal Sansthan shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to do anything which may be necessary or expedient for carrying out its functions under this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision such powers shall include the power. (i) to exercise all powers and perform all the functions relating to water supply, sewerage and sewege disposal of the area which lies within its jurisdiction ; (ii) to acquire, possess and hold lands and other property and to carry any water or sewerage works through, across, over or under any highway, road street or place and, after reasonable notice, in writing to the owner or occupier, into, through, over or under any building or land : (iii) to abstract water from any natural source and dispose of waste water. (iv) to enter into contract or agreement with any person or body as the Jal Sansthan may deem necessary ; (v) to adopt its own budget annually ; (vi) to introduce or amend tariff for water supply and sewerage services, subject to approval of the Nigam and collect all taxes and charges for these services as may be prescribed : provided that no decision to introduce or amend such tariff shall be taken except by a special resolution in that behalf brought after giving such notice as may be prescribed, and passed by the majority of two-thirds of the members of the Jal Sansthan ; (vii) to incur expenditure and manage its own funds ; (viii) to obtain loans, advances, subventions and grants from the Nigam. 52. 52. Taxes leviable.-- (1) For the purposes of this Act, a Jal Sansthan shall levy, on premises situated within its area : (a) where the area is covered by the water supply services of Jal Sansthan, a water tax ; and (b) where the area is covered by the sewerage services of Jal Sansthan, a sewerage tax ; (2) The taxes mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be levied at such rate which in the case of water tax shall be not less than 6 per cent and not more than 14 per cent and in the case of sewerage tax shall be not less than 2 per cent and not more than 4 per cent of the assessed annual value of the premises as the Government may, from time to time after considering the recommendation of the nigam, by notification in the Gazette, declare. 53. Assessment of annual value.-- (1) For the purposes of Section 52, annual value means : (a) in the case of railway stations, educational institutions (including their hostels and halls)factories (as defined in the Factories Act, 1948) and commercial establishments (as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam), 1956, five per cent of the market value of the premises. (b) in the case of any other premises, the gross annual rent for which such premises are actually let or where the premises are not let, the gross annual rent for which the premises might reasonably be expected to be let ; provided that the annual value in the case of premises occupied by the owner himself shall be deemed to be twenty-five per cent less than the annual value otherwise determined under this section. (2) The annual value of premises for the purposes of the levy of taxes mentioned in Section 52 shall be assessed by such authority as the State Government may, by general or special order direct, and such authority may be either the Jal Sansthan itself or any other agency may be specified in the order. (3) Where the assessment is made by the Jal Sansthan or by any other agency the Jal Sansthan or such other agency shall follow the prescribed procedure. (3) Where the assessment is made by the Jal Sansthan or by any other agency the Jal Sansthan or such other agency shall follow the prescribed procedure. (4) Until an assessment of the annual value of premises n any local area is made by the Jal sansthan or any other agency specified under subsection (2) the annual value of all premises in that local area, as assessed by the local body concerned for the purposes of house tax shall be deemed to be the annual value of the premises for the purposes of this Act as well. (5) Where the annual value of premises in any local area is assessed by the Jal Sansthan or other agency specified under sub-section (2) it shall, subject to any variation therein on appeal under section 54, be deemed to be the annual value of the premises for the purposes also of house tax levied by the local body concerned, anything contained in the law constituting such local body notwithstanding. 59. Cost of water.-- (1) A Jal Sansthan shall, by notification in the Gazette, fix the cost of water to be supplied by it according to its volume, and also the minimum cost to be charged in respect of each connection. (2) A Jal Sansthan may, in lieu of charging the cost of water according to volume, accept a fixed sum for a specified period on the basis of expected consumption of water during that period. 60. Cost of disposal of waste water.-- (1) A Jal Sansthan shall, by notification in the Gazette, fix the cost of disposal of water according to its volume (which shall be such percentage of the volume of total water supplied to the consumer as may be prescribed), and also the minimum cost to be charged in respect of such disposal. (2) A Jal Sansthan may in lieu of charging the cost of disposal of waste matter according to the basis stated in sub-section (1) accept a fixed sum for a specified period on the basis of expected disposal of waste water during that period. (2) A Jal Sansthan may in lieu of charging the cost of disposal of waste matter according to the basis stated in sub-section (1) accept a fixed sum for a specified period on the basis of expected disposal of waste water during that period. " ( 28 ) UPON the provisions contained in the Water Supply Act and also on the language used in article 285 of the Constitution of India read with Article 289 thereof, it appears that such consumption charges on water or such services which are rendered under the statutory obligation for which the Jal Sansthan is to maintain its own funds, the petitioner is fully liable and they must honour the bills which are served upon them for recovery of those charges. ( 29 ) THERE are thus two more reasons why it should be held that the petitioner cannot refuse to pay the Bills served by Jal Sansthan : (i) The petitioner has been uninterruptedly paying such bills since remote past as if in discharge of a contractual obligation, the petitioner has not denied the liability of paying the Bills regarding other railway stations but wants to avoid the payment of the instant liability on the strength of the prayers contained in the application which was moved by the petitioner seeking a decision of the Central Government to be taken as a policy measure and the petitioner wanted a stay of the recovery proceedings so long as that matter is not decided between the State government and Union of India. In other words, the said stand of the petitioner itself indicates the sudden shift on their part so as to challenge the imposition of water charges and sewer charges as being a charge on their property which obviously it has been paying as if contractually till the instant demand. (ii) The language of Article 287 of the Constitution of India is an instance where a type of demand against the railways is totally prohibited. It bars demand of electricity charges from the railways unless there be a law by Parliament even for "construction, maintenance or operation of any railway by the Government of India". Such is not the language of Article 285 vis-a-vis water charges or service charges for maintaining sewer system. It bars demand of electricity charges from the railways unless there be a law by Parliament even for "construction, maintenance or operation of any railway by the Government of India". Such is not the language of Article 285 vis-a-vis water charges or service charges for maintaining sewer system. No railway property or part of any railway property has or had been made target of any assessment or charge by the Jal Sansthan. The bills, the letters, the documents filed by both sides are indicative of only one demand by the jal Sansthan and i. e. based on the services rendered either by supplying water or by maintaining sewer system or the like. The demand is Similar as Jal Sansthan or its predecessor had been making since remote past, such demand is statutorily permitted by the Water Supply Act and has been regularly paid by the petitioner as permissible for settled or contractual payments under section 184 of the Railways Act. Therefore, the petitioners are legally duty bound to honour the bills and pay the same as early as possible. On the facts and circumstances it appears desirable to permit six weeks time to the petitioner to pay the entire demanded amount. ( 30 ) NO other decision has been cited nor any other argument has been advanced. ( 31 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition falls and is dismissed. The recovery proceedings shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks from today so that the petitioner may pay the amount demanded through the bills submitted to them by Jal Sansthan. ( 32 ) PARTIES will bear their own costs.