V.N. SINHA, J.:–None appears for the appellant. Same was the position even yesterday (11.03.2015). 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Municipal Commissioner, Katihar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Municipality”) through Sri Naresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Sri Vijay Kumar, Assistant Counsel to Sri Naresh Kumar Sinha informed this Court on 10.03.2015 that panel of Advocates of Municipality for the High Court has been revised and in the revised panel name of Sri Naresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate is not included. He also informed us that Sri Priya Ranjan, Advocate has been included in the new panel of Advocates notified by the Municipality and he has been informed about the present case. Accordingly, in order to secure appearance of Sri Priya Ranjan, Advocate in the present case on behalf of the appellant, we directed under our order dated 10.03.2015 to publish his name on the daily cause list. Name of Sri Priya Ranjan has been published in the daily cause list as the counsel for the appellant on 11.03.2015, yet he did not appear in the matter. We, however, passed over the matter. Even today, neither Sri Priya Ranjan nor any other counsel is available to press the appeal. In these circumstances, considering the fact that the appeal itself was filed on 11.11.1998 and notice was issued under order dated 09.12.1998, we chose to proceed with the hearing of the appeal. 3. Present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 13.07.1998, passed by learned Single Judge, in First Appeal No. 268 of 1974 whereunder judgment and decree dated 14.03.1974, passed in Title Suit No. 81 of 1966 has been affirmed holding that the water tax cannot be realised by Defendant No. 1 within the limits of Municipality, as imposition of the said tax is contrary to the provisions of Sections 82(1)(C), 85(1)(D) and 150(D) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. 4. It appears, plaintiffs-owner of different holdings within the Municipality filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1966 asserting that the Municipality has approved scheme for supply of drinking water within the Municipality in its meeting dated 28.06.1954 whereafter State Government in the Public Health Engineering Department also approved the said scheme for its execution. The scheme, however, was not executed in all the 30 localities of the Municipality. Pipelines could be laid in only 16 localities. The scheme, however, was not executed in all the 30 localities of the Municipality. Pipelines could be laid in only 16 localities. In rest of the 14 localities pipelines could not be laid until the date of suit/ decree. Even without laying the pipelines in 14 localities in which the plaintiffs resided water tax was imposed on the inhabitants. 5. Court below having considered the evidence led by the plaintiffs and the Municipality concluded that water pipelines for supply of drinking water in the 14 localities have not been laid, water tax should not be imposed on plaintiffs-respondents, the inhabitants of the 14 localities. Learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment having re-appreciated the evidence has found the findings recorded by the Court below to be just. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal is dismissed. However, before parting with this judgment, we would like to observe that if during pendency of this appeal water pipelines have been extended in the remaining 14 localities and potable water is supplied to the inhabitants of the 14 localities and other areas wherever potable water is supplied, Municipality shall levy water tax in accordance with law. 6. Let a copy this order be communicated to the appellant Municipal Commissioner, Katihar Municipality through fax by the office of this Court.