JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is the Apartment Owner’s Association. It has questioned the bill at Annexure-‘K’ issued by the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short ‘BWSSB’), demanding balance amount of Rs. 2,01,295/- being the arrears of sewerage charges. The respondent-Board have charged the apartment owners Rs. 50/- per month per flat as sewerage charges based on the order issued by the State Government. According to the petitioner’s, charging of Rs. 50/- per month from individual flat owners towards sewerage charges is illegal and is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 2. The State Government has issued an order as per Annexure-‘J’ dated 27.1.2005 fixing the water tariff and sanitary charges for domestic and non-domestic connections. The sanitary charges in respect of flats having water supply from BWSSB is different from the sanitary charges without the water supply from BWSSB. For better appreciation of the tariffs, the charges prescribed by the State Government, followed by the respondent–Board are as under: A. Sanitary Charges with water supply:- Sl. No. Consumption of water Sanitary charges Sanitary Charges Domestic Non-Domestic 1 Upto 25,000Lts Rs. 15/- flat rate 20% of Bill 2 25,001-50,000Lts 15% of Bill 20% of Bill 3 50,001 Lts and above 20% of Bill 20% of Bill B. Sanitary Charges:- 2. For premise having water supply & UGD connection but supplementing Water supply by Tankers/borewells (a) Domestic & Apartments Rs. 50/- per month per (b) Non-domestic individual house per flat. Revised from Rs.200 to Rs.300 per month per HP of borewell. 3. Premises not having water supply Rs.300/- per month. connection from BWSSB but having only UGD connection Drawing the attention of the Court, Sri B.M. Baliga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondent’s action in charging Rs. 50/-from individual flat owners towards sanitary charges is illegal, inasmuch as, the respondents are charging Rs. 15/- at a flat rate per flat in respect of flats which are provided with water supply from the respondent-Board, and whereas, Rs. 50/- per month is charged towards sanitary charges for the flat which does not get water supply from the respondent-Board. 50/-from individual flat owners towards sanitary charges is illegal, inasmuch as, the respondents are charging Rs. 15/- at a flat rate per flat in respect of flats which are provided with water supply from the respondent-Board, and whereas, Rs. 50/- per month is charged towards sanitary charges for the flat which does not get water supply from the respondent-Board. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that the owners of flats who are having the benefit of water supply, as well as the sewerage connections from the respondent-Board, are charged less per month as compared to the persons who are the owners of the flats having no water supply from the respondent-Board. Thus, according to him, action of the respondents in collection Rs. 50/- per month towards sanitary charges is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the persons who are getting higher benefit from the respondents are being charged less than the petitioner who are getting lesser benefits. 3. The undisputed facts are that the apartments complex in question has 96 apartments/flats. Entire building is not being supplied with the water by the respondent-Board. The flats are having their own arrangements of getting water from the tankers or by drawing water from the borewells. It is also not in dispute that each individual flat is connected with drainage and consequently, each individual flat is discharging sewerage and the sewerage lines are maintained by the Board. Though the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prima facie appears to be attractive, deserves to be rejected on going deep into the matter. It is no doubt true that the flats/houses which are being supplied with water by the respondent-Board are charged with Rs.15/- per flat if such flats/houses draw water from the respondent-Board only upto 25,000 liters. If the houses/flat receives water from the respondent-Board to the extent of 25,000 to 50,000 liters, then such house/flat owner will have to pay 15% of the water bill towards sanitary charges. If the house/flat receives more than 50,000 liters of water, then, such owner of the house/flat will have to pay 20% of the water bill. In the matter on hand, admittedly the flats of the petitioners’ Association do not draw water from the respondent-Board and consequently there is no arrangement to know as to how much water each flat consumes. If the house/flat receives more than 50,000 liters of water, then, such owner of the house/flat will have to pay 20% of the water bill. In the matter on hand, admittedly the flats of the petitioners’ Association do not draw water from the respondent-Board and consequently there is no arrangement to know as to how much water each flat consumes. It is needless to observe that since the petitioners are not drawing water from the respondent-Board, there is no question of issuing water bill to them by the respondent-Board. Therefore, nobody would know as to how much water each flat of the apartments complex consumes. The intention behind charging more amount towards sanitary charges for the flats which are getting more amount of water is clear. If residents of a flat/house are more, water consumption is more, sewerage discharge also will be more. The Sewerage Board will be burdened to the said extent. In the matter on hand, the petitioners are having their own arrangement of drawing water from the borewells or from the tankers. Therefore, it is impossible for the respondents to assess as to how much water is consumed by each of the individual flat owners. In view of the same and in order to overcome such anomaly, the respondents as well as the State Government have fixed flat rate at Rs.50/- per month from individual house/flats which is not getting water from the respondent-Board irrespective of quantity of consumption of water by each flat. The same cannot be said to be unreasonable. 4. The argument of Sri B.M.Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioners that Rs.15/-per flat should be charged, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to show that individual flat is receiving water only to an extent of 25,000 liters. In a given case, flats may consume 25,000 liters or more of water. In the absence of any mechanism to assess the consumption of water by each of the flat of the petitioner association, drawn from the borewells as well as from tankers, the State Government, as well as the respondents have fixed certain formula as mentioned supra. The tariff which is fixed by the respondents cannot be said to be unreasonable. The scope of judicial scrutiny is far less when the price fixation is not governed by the statute and statutory order. The tariff which is fixed by the respondents cannot be said to be unreasonable. The scope of judicial scrutiny is far less when the price fixation is not governed by the statute and statutory order. However arbitrary action taken by the State, could indeed be subject to scrutiny by the Courts. But Courts would not act as an appellate authority over determination of rates by the Government to fix such price as it thinks appropriate. The rates are fixed having regard to the public interest which inter alia may include the interest of the revenue, environment, ecology and need of the industry/board and the requirements of other consumers. Price fixation is neither the function nor forte of the Court. The Mechanism of price fixation is the concern of the executive and the Court will not generally re-evaluate the considerations. The respondents are the experts in the field. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority for substituting its opinion in the matter of fixing of tariff. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.NARAYAN IYER –VS- THE UNION OF INDIA( AIR 1976 SC 1986 ) has ruled that the Courts have no jurisdiction under Article 226 to go into the reasonableness of the rates. The rates are decided as policy matter in fiscal planning. There is legislative prescription of rates. Rates are the matter for legislative judgment and not for judicial determination. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any illegality in fixing the rate at the flat rate of Rs.50/- per flat. 5. Sri B.M.Baliga further submits that the entire building consisting of 96 flats shall be treated as one single premises and Rs.300/- per month can be charged towards sanitary charges. Such an argument also cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the building is having 96 flats. Each of the flats is discharging sewerage. Hence, the owner of each of the flat will have to pay the sewerage charges independently. By any stretch of imagination, the entire building cannot be treated as one premises for the purpose of charging sanitary charges. 6. Sri B.M.Baliga, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of B.W.S.S.B. –VS- RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL (ILR 1986 KAR. 488) to contend that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Sri B.M.Baliga, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of B.W.S.S.B. –VS- RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL (ILR 1986 KAR. 488) to contend that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforementioned decision is totally inapplicable to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the question involved was the similarity of tariff fixed for domestic and non-domestic premises. In that context, it has been held that the charges cannot be the same towards domestic and non-domestic premises. In the matter on hand, we are not concerned with non-domestic premises. This Court is concerned only with domestic premises. As aforementioned, the building is having 96 flats and 96 flat owners are residing with their families. Each flat is getting water from the tankers or borewells and each flat is discharging effluents/sewerage. Therefore, each flat will have to pay towards sanitary charges individually. In view of the above, petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.