Judgment :- B. RAJENDRAN, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.16144 of 1992 dated 01.03.2000. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the above said writ petition praying to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992. The appellant/writ petitioner would state that their Factory was established in the early 50s ; that it employed more than 1000 people ; it is a salt factory and there was no drinking water for the employees in the salt pans in the vicinity ; he excavated a well in Survey No.215/1 of Kulathur Village and tapped drinking water from the said well to cater the needs of the workers. 2. It is admitted that the well was dug up by the petitioner in a Government land measuring about 3 cents. It is also stated that even for dugging the well, aid was granted from the Central Salt Cess Fund and the water was taken through pipe lines to the Factory which situate about 5 kilometers away exclusively for the purpose of drinking. 3. According to the petitioner, all of a sudden, in the year 1983, the Collector of Tirunelveli District passed an order levying a sum of Rs.2,01,491/- as water charges from 1961 in respect of the water consumed by the petitioner from the aforesaid source calculated at Rs.30/- per 1000 cubic meter. As against this, the petitioner presented a petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration/ the 2nd respondent and the second respondent remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent and on remarks and reports from the Tahsildar, Vilathikulam and Executive Engineer, PWD, the third respondent passed an order dated 04.05.1986 permitting the petitioner to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.2/- per 1000 cubic meter from 03.11.1961. The petitioner was therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,661/-towards water charges for the period from 03.11.1961 to 30.06.1986 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.635/- per annum towards the water charges without any default. 4. The petitioner would state that the revised order made on 29.09.1990 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,491/-is erroneous and no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government on 05.11.1990 to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 29.09.1990. 4. The petitioner would state that the revised order made on 29.09.1990 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,491/-is erroneous and no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government on 05.11.1990 to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 29.09.1990. The petitioner has also filed additional grounds of appeal on 27.12.1990 and filed further petition to the Minister for Revenue on 03.10.1991. Subsequently, the Government has modified the order of the third respondent and passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992 directing the petitioner to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.16/- per 1000 cubic meter for the period from 1961 to March 1975 ; Rs.30/- per 1000 cubic meter for the period from April 1975 to February 1986 ; Rs.30/- per cubic meter for the period from March 1986 to May 1991 and at the rate of Rs.60/- per 1000 liters from 09.05.1991. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition to set aside the order dated 28.04.1992 on the ground that the water has been used only for drinking purpose ; that the impugned order is against order dated 04.05.1986 passed by the 3rd respondent, who passed the said order applying the principles laid down in G.O.Ms.No.2099 PWD dated 14.11.1979 and levied charges at the rate of Rs.2/-per 1000 cubic meter ; that there cannot be retrospective increase or a direction to pay the amount and it is arbitrary and unreasonable and besides, the first respondent has not considered the representation made by him. 6. The respondents have filed detailed counter affidavit, wherein, they specifically stated that G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue, dated 28.04.1992 was passed only after considering the representation of the petitioner and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. They would further state that as a employer, the factory is liable to give the drinking water to all its employees. Therefore, when water is taken out from outside the factory especially from Government land, it can only be considered to have been taken only for industrial purposes. They would further submit that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission of the Government before embarking to encroach and occupy the Government land by digging a well and erecting accessories thereon. Therefore, when water is taken out from outside the factory especially from Government land, it can only be considered to have been taken only for industrial purposes. They would further submit that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission of the Government before embarking to encroach and occupy the Government land by digging a well and erecting accessories thereon. It is also submitted that G.O.Ms.No.2099, Public Works Department dated 14.11.1979 has been adopted by the Collector, Tirunelveli for the purpose of fixing royalty to the water taken by the petitioner, whereas, the water charges were levied separately in accordance with the G.O. It is further stated that there is no question of levying retrospective increase in the water charges. As the petitioner has failed to pay the water charges from the encroached date, the amount was fixed as per the representation and he was called to pay the amount from the date, he was utilising the same. As water is used exclusively by the factory and its employees, water charges cannot be levied on the villagers. Therefore, the order passed by the Government is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this court. 7. On the pleadings set out by the petitioner and on hearing the arguments, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no retrospective increase in the levy of water charges and G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992 was only passed after considering the representation made by the petitioner and there is nothing warranting to set aside the order of the Government. Aggrieved against the said order dated 01.03.2000, the appellant has come forward with the present writ appeal. 8. We have heard in detail the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 9. Aggrieved against the said order dated 01.03.2000, the appellant has come forward with the present writ appeal. 8. We have heard in detail the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 9. The only grievance which is specifically made out by the appellant is that in the year 1983, the Collector of Tiruneveli has passed an order fixing the charges for water and subsequently in 1986, a subsequent order has been passed by the third respondent fixing the water charges and subsequently in 1990, the third respondent enhanced the water charges and there was no notice for the same and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992 was passed by the first respondent, modifying the order of the third respondent dated 29.09.1990, without enquiring into the matter and therefore, the impugned order viz., G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992 modifying the water charges is illegal as water is used only for drinking purpose. 10. At the outset, we would like to point out that as early as on 14.11.1979 itself, G.O.Ms.No.2099 (Public Works Department) was passed fixing the charge of Rs.2/- per thousand cubic meter of water drawn from Government sources. On a careful perusal of the said G.O., it is very clear that the said G.O., pertains to levy of water charges to the local bodies in respect of royalty charges for the supply of drinking water for domestic purposes as well as for the use of industrial consumers. Therefore, the above said G.O., will apply only in so far as local bodies are concerned, which draws water from the Government sources. 11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner originally presented a petition to the Collector on 13.05.1985 with reference to the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Madras No.K.Dis.15673/84 dated 18.03.1985 requesting to revise the order of levy of Rs.2,01,491/- as water charges passed in Collectors Proceedings K.Dis.148626/82, dated 30.06.1983. Therefore, it is very clear that the Collector in his earliest proceedings dated 30.06.1983 itself demanded a sum of Rs.2,01.491/-being the amount due and payable by the petitioner towards water charges, for which, he presented a petition to revise the order. Therefore, it is very clear that the Collector in his earliest proceedings dated 30.06.1983 itself demanded a sum of Rs.2,01.491/-being the amount due and payable by the petitioner towards water charges, for which, he presented a petition to revise the order. Pursuant to the request made by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Vilathikulam was directed to give his report and the Tahsildar also gave a report to the effect that the water is being taken in order to meet the needs of drinking water for the workers in the factory. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Tuticorin Division also was directed to give a report in this regard and he also gave a report to the Collector, Tirunelveli stating that the appellant had put up 10 H.P., pumpset and had taken the water in an overhead tank of 14,000 gallons capacity constructed in the factory premises and the water is being used for drinking by the labourers and staff working in the factory and the Executive Engineer has specifically recommended that the necessary charges should be levied on the factory in accordance with the Boards Standing Orders. Taking into consideration this report and also taking into consideration the earlier original order issued by the Collector as early as on 30.06.1983, a subsequent order was passed on 1990. In the mean time, on 04.05.1986, the Collector, Tirunelveli passed an order fixing the royalty charges for the drawal of water from a poramboke land in Survey No.215, Kulathoor Village, Vilathikulam Taluk for drinking purposes for the period from 03.11.1961 to 30.06.1986 at Rs.2/- per 1000 cubic meters as per G.O.Ms.No.2099 dated 14.11.1979 and thereafter, from 03.11.1961 to 31.12.1961, a sum of Rs.103/- and for 24 ½ years i.e., from 01.01.1962 to 30th June 1986, it was fixed at Rs.635 per annum and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,661/-. The appellant was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.635/- per annum towards the royalty for Fasli 1396. Therefore, the order dated 04.05.1986 pertains to the royalty only. 12. The appellant was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.635/- per annum towards the royalty for Fasli 1396. Therefore, the order dated 04.05.1986 pertains to the royalty only. 12. Pursuant to the above order, by Roc.No.Q3/92977/85 dated 04.05.1986, the appellant was also issued with a license, wherein, in Clause (4), it has been very clearly stated that licencee shall pay to the Government a royalty of Rs.635/-for each fasli year, it shall be paid in advance in the month of April of each year and in default, the supply of water may be cut off without notice. 13. The above said license was issued to the appellant permitting him to take water for drinking purposes from Survey No.215, Tank poramboke, Kulathur Village, Vilathikulam Taluk for fasli 1396, which has nothing to do with the actual consumption charges or the actual water usage charges. 14. Thereafter, by a proceeding dated 29.09.1990, the District Collector has categorically stated that the petitioner had taken water un-authorisedly without any permission and without any licence from the poramboke land right from 03.11.1961 to 31.12.1982 and therefore, fixed the actual charges for the consumption of water from 03.11.1961 to 31.12.1982 at the rate of Rs.30/- per 1000 cubic meter and modified the water charges as Rs.2,01,491/-. In fact in that order itself, it was very clearly stated that in so far as the water consumed between 01.01.1983 and the date of the order viz., 29.09.1990, a separate proceedings levying charges for the actual water consumed by the appellant will be passed. 15. On receipt of the said proceedings, the appellant made a representation on 05.11.1990 to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein, he would state that the order dated 29.09.1990, revising the rate from Rs.2/- per 1000 cubic meter as per the earlier order dated 04.05.1986 is without notice and this is not correct and the rate fixed at Rs.30/-will be only applicable so far as the water consumption for industrial purpose and therefore, prayed for cancellation of the order dated 29.09.1990. The appellant had also raised additional grounds of appeal on 27.12.1990 stating that the order dated 29.09.1990 levying water charges with retrospective effect from 1961 onwards is illegal. The appellant had also made a representation to the Minister on 03.10.1991 on the very same ground. 16. The appellant had also raised additional grounds of appeal on 27.12.1990 stating that the order dated 29.09.1990 levying water charges with retrospective effect from 1961 onwards is illegal. The appellant had also made a representation to the Minister on 03.10.1991 on the very same ground. 16. A perusal of the impugned order viz., G.O.Ms.No.493 dated 28.04.1992 would go to show that the Government has taken into consideration the representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.1990 and the grounds of appeal dated 27.12.1990 and also reports of the District Collector and the Executive Engineer and various other documents. In the impugned order itself, it is very clearly stated that the appeal made by the petitioner had been treated as a revision before the Government and that the petitioner has taken water from the Government land without any permission right from 03.11.1961 to 31.12.1982, after which royalty was fixed on 04.05.1986. 17. The first respondent has very categorically held that the water taken by the petitioner, though it is termed for drinking purpose for the employees, it would only be considered as for industrial purpose, since it is the duty of the employer to provide necessary water to the employees and the water is drawn from poramboke land to the factory. 18. In any way, the Government had taken into consideration the representation of the petitioner and revised the charges as follows:- rom 1961 to March 1975, it has been fixed at the rate of Rs.16/- per 1000 cubic meter and from April 1975 to February 1986, it is Rs.30/-per 1000 cubic meter and from March 1986 to 08.05.1991, it is Rs.60/-per 1000 cubic meter and from 09.05.11991 to the date of the order, it is Rs.60/-per 1000 litres. 19. Therefore, on a careful reading of the impugned G.O., it is very clear that the appellant originally did not obtain any licence at all and on his own, dug up well in the Government poramboke land and started utilising water for his use and thereafter, the Collector, Tirunelveli had originally issued the Proceedings dated 04.05.1986 and thereafter, license was issued by Roc. Dated 04.05.1986 and in the said licence it was very clearly stated that royalty alone was fixed. Thereafter, the actual water charges consumed by the appellant was levied on him. Dated 04.05.1986 and in the said licence it was very clearly stated that royalty alone was fixed. Thereafter, the actual water charges consumed by the appellant was levied on him. In fact, the petitioner made an appeal/representation to the Government and accepting the petitioners request, the flat rate of Rs.30/-per 1000 cubic meter for the period 03.11.1961 to 31.12.1982 was modified and the same was refixed as stated above. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order of the District Collector dated 29.09.1990 fixing Rs.30/- per 1000 cubic meter and fixing Rs.2,01,491/- for water charges was a unilateral order, wherein, the District Collector unilaterally enhanced the water charges from 1986 without even notice is factually wrong. 20. Even otherwise, the very order, which is now under challenge itself has been passed only after consideration of the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, the order could be said to be incorrect. Further more, the question of levying water charges retrospectively also does not arise in the case on hand. As rightly pointed out in the order dated 29.09.1990 and in 1983, from the initial date of drawal of water i.e., from 03.11.1961, water charges have not been paid by the appellant and therefore, the water charges are made known to him and he made a representation in that regard and after consideration of the representation and appeal before the Government, the impugned order was passed. 21. Hence, in these circumstances, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue dated 28.04.1992. Therefore, the order dated 01.03.2000 passed in W.P.No.16144 of 1992 by the learned single Judge is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected WAMP.No.19980 of 2001 is closed. No costs.