Ashim Kumar Banerjee And Tapan Mukherjee, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed by the Corporation being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge on August 22, 2003 appearing at pages 186-197 of the paper book. By the said judgment and order the learned Single Judge quashed a resolution of the Mayor-in-Council of the Corporation by which the Corporation stipulated the conditions for grant and/or renewal of licence for deep tube-well to extract sub-soil water. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 claims to be the lessee of the premises No. 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta. Under the deed of lease granted by the owner of the premises in question the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 developed the said premises and let it out to various tenants including the income-tax authority and the State Bank of India. There had been huge arrear of corporation taxes payable in respect of the said presimes in question. ( 3 ) AS many as seven writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. l from time to time and by that process on one plea or the other they stalled the process of smooth recovery of the arrear taxes. One of the appeals came up before this Court being APO No. 344 of 2002 which was dismissed by us on July 13, 2006. ( 4 ) INITIALLY the learned Single Judge in a writ petition granted liberty to the writ petitioner/respondent No. l to pay off the arrear dues by monthly instalment of Rs. 2 lakhs. They continued to pay the said instalment for some time and thereafter they stopped paying. Ultimately the Corporation attached the rent payble to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 by the tenants of the said premises in question including the income-tax and the State bank of India. A sum of Rs. 3. 16 lakhs is being realised by the Corporation on account of arrear taxes by way of attachment of rent. Apart from those seven writ petitions a civil suit is also pending in this Court in its Original side wherein the respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the current corporation taxes. We are told by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. l that they are regularly paying the current taxes. Apart from those seven writ petitions a civil suit is also pending in this Court in its Original side wherein the respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the current corporation taxes. We are told by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. l that they are regularly paying the current taxes. ( 5 ) THE premises had at one point of time water connection through the corporation pipe line. It is contended before us that such water connection became defunct and the Corporation had not been able to supply adequate water to the said premises in question through such pipeline resulting in acute water scarcity. The respondent No. 1 at that juncture applied for sinking of deep tube-well to meet the need of the premises in question after obtaining necessary licence from the Corporation. ( 6 ) THE present writ petition pertains to an order of refusal of renewal of such licence by the Corporation. The Corporation applying the resolution dated February 11, 2003 appearing at pages 270-271 of the paper book refused renewal of licence and sealed the deep tube-well. The writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 immediately approached this Court and this Court by an interim order restored such water supply through deep tube-well. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge after completion of affidavits and the writ petition was ultimately allowed by His Lordship by the impugned judgment and order. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the judgement and order under appeal we find that the learned Single Judge observed that the resolution dated February 11, 2003 was not a resolution at all as the word "resolved" was conspicuously absent in the said document. His Lordship considered the affidavit of the Municipal secretary and came to a conclusion that since neither any member of the mayor-in-Council nor the Mayor himself had come forward to support such resolution, the affidavit of Municipal Secretary was not enough to support the same. His Lordship relied upon section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and came to a conclusion that such affidavit was no evidence at all to support the said solution. His Lordship quashed the resolution and directed the corporation to renew the licence. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the judgement and order under appeal the present appeal was filed by the Corporation. ( 9 ) MR. His Lordship quashed the resolution and directed the corporation to renew the licence. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the judgement and order under appeal the present appeal was filed by the Corporation. ( 9 ) MR. Das Adhikari appearing in support of this appeal contends that under section 242 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (herinafter referred to as the said Act of 1980) sub-soil water resource is a property of the Corporation and the Corporation is entitled to regulate its use by granting and/or refusing permission under section 248 of the said Act of 1980. Mr. Das Adhikari contends that under sub-section (2) of section 248, the corporation was entitled to impose condition with regard to grant and/or renewal of licence. Such resolution of the Mayor-in-Council appearing at pages 270-71 of the paper book was taken by virtue of the power conferred upon the Corporation under section 248. Mr. Das Adhikari further contends that for the benefit of the residents of the city the Corporation took such resolution to stop indiscriminate use of sub-soil water. According to him, the Corporation is in a position to supply water through their pipeline which is adequate to cater the needs of the resisdents of the city In discriminate use of sub-soil water is causing great environmental problem as the ground water level is going down everyday because of indiscriminate use. ( 10 ) MR. Banerjee appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 submits that under section 193 of the said Act of 1980 the Corporation is only entitled to make the owner primarily liable for payment of the corporation tax. They are also entitled to disconnect water supply for nonpayment of tax. Even in such case restrictions have been imposed by the legislature upon the Corporation so that inconvenience is not caused to the occupants of the premises where water connection is sought to the disconnected. Mr. Banerjee has also drawn our attention to section 275 where in detailed provisions have been made with regard to disconnection of water supply. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the said section relates to disconnection of filtered water supply by the Corporation through their pipeline and not the sub-soil water. According to him, the said Act of 1980 has not stipulated any provision with regard to sealing of deep tube-well. ( 11 ) WE have considered the judgement and order under appeal. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the said section relates to disconnection of filtered water supply by the Corporation through their pipeline and not the sub-soil water. According to him, the said Act of 1980 has not stipulated any provision with regard to sealing of deep tube-well. ( 11 ) WE have considered the judgement and order under appeal. We are of the view that under section 248, the Corporation has power to regulate use of sub-soil water by grant and/or refusal and/or renewal of licence for deep tube-well. The Corporation is entitled to put condition with regard to grant of licence as they have done by the resolution appearing at pages 270-71. Merely because the word "resolved" was absent in the said resolution the learned Judge should not have quashed the same which would have a tremendous effect not only on the environmental aspect but also on the right of the Corporation which was granted bythe statute regulating subsoil water under section 242. ( 12 ) THE learned Judge relied upon section 91 of the Evidence Act. With due respect and with all humility we do not find any scope of applicability of such provision in the instant case. The Municipal Commissioner is the Ex officio Secretary of the Mayor-in-Council. He, by his affidavit contended that such resolution had, in fact, been taken. We also find the signature of the Mayor-in-Council at the foot of the resolution. It is well-settled principle of law that to interpret a document it has to be read as a whole. On perusal of the document appearing at pages 270-71, it would appear that the corporation did impose condition for issue of licence of the deep tube-well. One of such conditions was that if there was any outstanding dues on account of premises in question, refusal could be made on that score. It was also pointed out that where the Corporation was in a position to supply filter water through its pipeline, licence could not be granted. Such condition took into consideration the environmental aspect. ( 13 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 kept huge outstanding towards arrear of taxes. It is not expected that they would enjoy all municipal facilities including the sub-soil water being a property of the Corporation without payment of tax. Such condition took into consideration the environmental aspect. ( 13 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 kept huge outstanding towards arrear of taxes. It is not expected that they would enjoy all municipal facilities including the sub-soil water being a property of the Corporation without payment of tax. It is true that to realise the arrear of taxes the Corporation attached the rent payable by the tenants to the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1. That in our view would take an inordinate time to square off the liability which has mounted because of the default in making payment of the taxes regularly by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1. ( 14 ) THE writ petitioner/respondent No. l did not insist supply of water through pipeline knowing that there might be disconnection for non-payment under section 275. What they could not achieve directly, should not have been allowed to be achieved indirectly which they wanted by running the deep tube-well. The learned Judge, in our view, possibly did not approach the problem from this angle. ( 15 ) THE appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The order under appeal is quashed and set aside. ( 16 ) WE, however, make it clear that the Corporation would allow the writ petitioner/respondent No. l to enjoy sub-soil water for a period of three months from date. Within the said period the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 would approach the Corporation by making necessary application, for restoration of the water connection through pipeline. ( 17 ) IN case such application is made and all formalities are complied with, the Corporation shall restore the water supply and supply adequate water to the said premises in question considering the need of the said premises. ( 18 ) IN case such application is not made within the stipulated period, the corporation would be entitled to seal the deep tube-well ( 19 ) IN case despite such application being made, the Corporation is not a position to supply adequate water, they shall allow the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 to use the deep tube-well as well in addition to the water supply to be given by the Corporation. ( 20 ) WITH these observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed.