Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This is perhaps the oldest writ petition pending before this court in which Union of India and Rajasthan Atomic Power Station have approached this court challenging assessment order dated 04.03.1985 passed by the Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Jaipur, in the capacity as Assessing Authority, under Section 6 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. Also under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated 30.07.1985 by which the appeal filed by petitioner against aforesaid order of assessment has been dismissed by respondent no.3 – the Appellate Committee, Rajasthan State Board for prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Jaipur. Petitioner No.2 – the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (for short, 'the petitioner RAPS') has been set up at Kota in the State of Rajasthan by the Central Government. The Parliament enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Pollution Act') for the purpose of prevention and control of water pollution and for maintenance or restoration of the wholesomeness of water and for the establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, and for conferring on or assigning to, such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(e) of the Pollution Act has defined the word “pollution”. Chapter-V of the Pollution Act lays down as to how the said powers are exercised in respect of control and prevention of water pollution. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 63 of the Pollution Act, has made Rules known as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975. 2. The Parliament also enacted the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Cess Act'). The Cess Act provides for levy and collection of a cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities. Under the provisions of the Cess Act, it is provided that the cess shall be levided and collected for the purposes of Pollution Act. The Cess Act provides for levy and collection of a cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities. Under the provisions of the Cess Act, it is provided that the cess shall be levided and collected for the purposes of Pollution Act. The cess shall be payable by every person carrying on any specified industry and by every local authority, and shall be calculated on the basis of the water consumed by such person or local authority for any of the purposes specified in column (1) of Schedule-II at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof. The amount of cess so collected shall be remitted to the Central Government. Section 8 of the Cess Act stipulates that the proceeds of the cess levied under Section 3 shall first be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and the Central Government may, if Parliament by appropriation made by law in this behalf so provides, pay the Central Board and every State Board, from time to time, from out of such proceeds, after deducting the expenses on collection, such sums of money as it may think fit. 3. Section 3(2)(a) of the Cess Act, as it originally stood at the relevant time, provided that the cess under sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be payable by every person carrying on any industry. Section 2(c) of the Cess Act defines the word “specified industry” to mean any industry specified in Schedule-I to the Cess Act. Entry 14 of the Schedule-I, at the relevant time mentioned “Power (thermal and diesel) generating industry”. Thereafter Entry 14 of Schedule-I was substituted by GSR 377 (E) dated 16.04.1993, and word “hydel” was also included in the bracketed portion aforesaid i.e. “Power (thermal, diesel and hydel) generating industry”. Thereafter, by substitution by Act 19 of 2003, Section 2(c) of the Cess Act was substituted to the effect that “industry” includes any operation or process, or treatment and disposal system, which consumes water or gives rise to sewage effluent or trade effluent, but does not include any hydel power unit. This court, for the present case, however, is concerned with assessment period from April, 1984 to March, 1985 and therefore the matter has to be decided on the basis of the provisions and entry in Schedule-I as it existed at the relevant time. 4. This court, for the present case, however, is concerned with assessment period from April, 1984 to March, 1985 and therefore the matter has to be decided on the basis of the provisions and entry in Schedule-I as it existed at the relevant time. 4. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the assessing authority vide ex-parte assessment order dtd. 4.3.1985 determined the amount of Rs.30,79,902.95 as cess for the period from April, 1984 to March, 1985. The appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without appreciating the arguments raised by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel argued that according to Art. 285 of the Constitution, the properties of the Central Government are exempt from cess tax or any kind of tax. The RAPS being a Government property by it, the respondent Board has no authority to levy cess on the consumption of water. The RAPS does not fall in either Sec. 2 or Sec. 3 of the Cess Act as it is not one of the industries specified in Schedule-I and also because it is neither a person nor a local authority. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if it is assumed that RAPS is included within the purview of a person, then also it cannot be held liable to pay cess as the electricity is generated by use of nuclear power, which does not fall within the purview of either thermal or diesel. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that nuclear power is the fourth largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity as per Energy Statistics 2012, 2013 and 2014 report given by the Ministry of Power of Government of India. Thermal is a distinct source of power from nuclear one and generation of power by these sources have been separately mentioned in such reports. Learned Senior Counsel has, in this connection, cited judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India and Others – (2013) 6 SCC 620 , especially Para 12 of the report and submitted that the Supreme Court has also taken note of the fact that while the country draws bulk of its electricity, above 64%, from thermal sources, especially coal. Hydro-power comes second at 18% and then renewable sources claim share at about 15%. The Supreme Court has enlisted the share of nuclear energy being about 3%. Hydro-power comes second at 18% and then renewable sources claim share at about 15%. The Supreme Court has enlisted the share of nuclear energy being about 3%. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even as per the report of N.C.R.T., thermal and nuclear power are two different and distinct source of energy. 6. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned Senior Counsel would submit that petitioner RAPS has been established by the Government of India by virtue of its power under Section 3 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. Section 28 thereof provides that provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or any other instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. Former being Special Act and also having overriding effect over the later, would prevail over both the Pollution Act and Cess Act. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the RAPS does not deal with the water in the process of electricity generation. It consumes water only for cooling purposes but during this process, the water does not get polluted within the meaning of the term 'pollution' as used in Section 2(e) of the Pollution Act. According thereto, the pollution means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water which may, or is likely to create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety. The word 'contaminate' is not defined in the Pollution Act but as per dictionary meaning as also the common parlance, its meaning is to defile by touching or mixing with, to pollute, to corrupt, to infect. By mere use of water for cooling, there is no defilement by touching or mixing with any substance. 8. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, submitted that entry no.14 of Schedule-I notified under Section 2(c) of the Cess Act, being the fiscal entry, has to be construed strictly as it creates a financial liability for the petitioners-assessee. If two views are possible on interpretation of a particular entry, then the one which favours the assessee, has to be preferred. If two views are possible on interpretation of a particular entry, then the one which favours the assessee, has to be preferred. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Nawn Estates (P) Ltd. vs. C.I.T., West Bengal – AIR 1977 SC 153 , CIT, Punjab vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. - AIR 1970 SC 1734 and State of Jharkhand vs. Jammulu Ramulu – AIR 2001 SC 2699 . 9. Per contra, Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board, has defended the impugned assessment order as well as appellate order. She would submit that petitioner RAPS is an industry, which is liable to pay cess in terms of the assessment order. The impugned assessment order has rightly required the petitioners to pay forthwith amount of cess along-with penalty. It is wrong to contend that the Atomic Energy Act, is a special Act and has been, as per Sec. 28, given overriding effect and as such they are not liable for cess. The Cess Act is a special Act and later enactment and shall therefore, prevail over the Atomic Energy Act. The Cess is leviable not only for the fact of pollution but it is exclusively governed by the provision of the Pollution Act and it has to be levied on the basis of water consumed. 10. Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel further argued that activities carried on by the petitioner RAPS would be squarely covered by Entry No.14 of Schedule-I as it stood originally. An atomic power plant would be very much a thermal plant because of heat caused by use of atomic energy therein to generate steam. The assessing authority and the appellate authority have rightly held that it would be covered by Entry 14 of Schedule-I. Diesel has also been included therein which directly creates electrical energy as can be seen in the case of vehicles and generators. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the opinion of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure-R/4). It is argued that electricity can be generated through flowing water by way of hydel power plants. It can also be generated by burning coal etc., which is a thermal power plant. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the opinion of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure-R/4). It is argued that electricity can be generated through flowing water by way of hydel power plants. It can also be generated by burning coal etc., which is a thermal power plant. The State of Rajasthan in Anta of Kota District has Gas Power Plant, which uses gas to generate the heat which then is converted into electrical energy. Similarly, in Atomic Power Plants, heat is generated through atomic fusion, which is then converted into electrical energy. 11. Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of her arguments, has relied on judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in The A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd. vs. The Appellate Committee, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Act, and Another - AIR 2001 AP 523 , and submitted that issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by that judgment, wherein it was held that Entry 14 of Schedule I is wide enough to include thermal power operated by natural gas as thermal includes gas supported power generating industries. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that Article 285 would not be attracted in the present case as it is not a case of taxation on the property of the Union of India. There is no ambiguity in so far as coverage of atomic/nuclear power caused generation of heat to be described as thermal in nature. There is therefore no question of there being any possibility of two views on this and then the one favouring the assessing being preferred. All the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners are therefore distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. 13. Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioners use huge quantity of water for domestic purpose and such a consumption results in discharge of sewage effluent, which is covered by definition of pollution, and would thus attract levy of cess. Besides, the petitioners are also consuming water for cooling purpose, which results in increase of its temperature. Alteration or increase of temperature of water is physical pollutant. In this connection reliance is placed on the book authored by Klein. L., entitled 'River Pollution, Volume II, Causes and Effects', Butterworth, London. Author Klein. Besides, the petitioners are also consuming water for cooling purpose, which results in increase of its temperature. Alteration or increase of temperature of water is physical pollutant. In this connection reliance is placed on the book authored by Klein. L., entitled 'River Pollution, Volume II, Causes and Effects', Butterworth, London. Author Klein. L., in his said book, has clearly classified various pollutants into four categories, namely, chemical, physical, physiological and biological. He has said that alteration of temperature is a physical pollutant. In Tipping V.S. Ecksersly (1855) 2, K & J page 264, rising of temperature was held to cause pollution. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 15. Dealing with first of all the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that overriding effect having been given to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Cess Act has to give way to the former and that no such levy can be realized from petitioner RAPS, which is established and set up by the Central Government by virtue of power conferred upon it by Section 3 of the Atomic Energy Act, it must be noted that while the Atomic Energy Act, was enacted by the Parliament to provide for development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful purposes and for matters connected therewith, the Cess Act was enacted to provide for levy and collection of cess on water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and by local authorities with a view to augment the resources of Central Board and the State Boards for prevention and control of water pollution constituted under the Pollution Act. According to sub-section (2) of Section 1, it extends to whole of India, except Jammu and Kashmir, and according to sub-section (3) thereof, it applies to all States and Union Territories, to which the Pollution Act applies. The very applicability of the Pollution Act to a particular State thus attracts the Cess Act. Section 3 of the Cess Act further clarifies that it is the charging provision in terms whereof a cess shall be collected and levied for the purpose of Pollution Act, which shall be payable from every person carrying on certain industry and by local authority. The Cess Act thus operates in entirely different field. Section 3 of the Cess Act further clarifies that it is the charging provision in terms whereof a cess shall be collected and levied for the purpose of Pollution Act, which shall be payable from every person carrying on certain industry and by local authority. The Cess Act thus operates in entirely different field. None of its provisions come in conflict with any provision of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. There is thus neither any obvious nor implied conflict between two enactments, therefore, the question of applicability of overriding provision contained in Section 28 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, does not arise. 16. Contention that RAPS being the establishment of the Central Government, would be exempt from levy of cess in view of the provisions contained in Article 285 of the Constitution, which provides that property of the Union shall save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State, also cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, clause (1) of Article 285 itself has authorized such a levy if it is under a law enacted by Parliament i.e. a Central law. The Cess Act is the Central law and was enacted by the Parliament, thus permitting levy of cess. Secondly, the levy of cess is not on any property of the Union Government but it is on use and consumption of enormous amount of water by the RAPS for the purpose of power generation as also domestic, which is a specified industry in Entry 14 of Schedule-I as provided by Section 2(c) of the Cess Act. 17. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Saraswathi Sugar Mills vs. Haryana State Board – (1992) 1 SCC 418 , wherein it was held by the Supreme Court as under:- “The object of the Act is to control the water pollution and to ensure that industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into the water courses without adequate treatment. The Cess Act is not an enactment to regulate and control pollution but a fiscal measure to raise revenue for augmenting the resources of the Pollution Control Boards. The levy and collection of cess provided under the Cess Act is on water consumed by persons carrying on the industries specified in the Schedule. The Cess Act is not an enactment to regulate and control pollution but a fiscal measure to raise revenue for augmenting the resources of the Pollution Control Boards. The levy and collection of cess provided under the Cess Act is on water consumed by persons carrying on the industries specified in the Schedule. The cess is levied on the person carrying on the specified industry. Pollution Act may be a regulating Act but Cess Act is fiscal enactment, as is held by this Court in Member Secretary, A.P. State Board for prevention and Control of Water Pollution vs. A.P. Rayons Ltd. ( AIR 1989 SC 611 ) and Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Cess Appellate Committee (1999) 1 SCC 93. Therefore we have to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment and there is no room for bringing within the provision of the Act anything by implication.” 18. Argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that in various reports of the Central Government, some of which have been produced before this court and were also cited before the Supreme Court in A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited, supra, the nuclear energy has been treated as distinct and separate source of power generation than thermal energy and therefore it is not covered by “thermal” in Entry 14 of Schedule-I, supra. On this analogy, the principal argument raised by the petitioners is that power generation by use of atomic or nuclear energy would not be covered by the broad term “thermal” used in Entry 14, supra, which, inter alia, provides “the Power (Thermal and Diesel) Generating Industry”. Word 'thermal' has not been defined in the Cess Act or the Cess Rules. We will have to therefore resort to the ordinary meaning attached to this word in common parlance. The word 'Thermal' is defined in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary to mean 'of heat', pertaining to 'heat'. 19. Basically there are only two major sources for deriving electrical power generators, one is hydro and other is thermal. While hydroelectric power is derived from generators turned by falling water, most other electric power is reduced by generators turned by steam pressure. The steam may be produced either by burning fossil fuel or by a nuclear reactor. The technology in thermal power generation has progressed tremendously. While hydroelectric power is derived from generators turned by falling water, most other electric power is reduced by generators turned by steam pressure. The steam may be produced either by burning fossil fuel or by a nuclear reactor. The technology in thermal power generation has progressed tremendously. In generation of electric power from fuel, the heat energy of the fuel is first converted into mechanical energy by a prime mover and then into electrical energy by a generator. In an atomic power plant, water is pushed past the reactor core so as to carry the heat elsewhere for achieving the desired cooling of the reactor core. There is a coolant loop which helps in cooling the nuclear core to some degree because the heated water rises and colder water gets pulled in. Whether it is a boiling water reactor or a pressurized water reactor, result in both is convection of natural forces. Thus, water is circulated continuously in a closed system cycle for the purpose of heat transfer from the core. It is turned to steam by primary heat source in order to drive the turbine to generate electricity. It is then condensed and returned under pressure to the heat source in a closed system. 20. As understood from above narration, atomic power plants are merely a progressive change in the direction of thermal power plants. Emphasis is now more on generating clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source which can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels like coal, oil, gas, etc. The Supreme Court in G. Sundarrajan, supra, has elaborately dealt with the aspect as to how nuclear energy is more reliable and sustainable source of energy to increase country's growth. But in the present case, we are concerned with the argument whether generation of power by atomic/nuclear energy would not come within the purview of thermal power. Merely because in that judgment, nuclear energy has been enlisted as a distinct category than thermal, does not mean that it is not covered by 'thermal'. This was indicated as a separate category therein only for highlighting the extent of its share as a source in overall power generation. 21. The word 'thermal' when understood both in its literal as well as dictionary meaning, would evidently make it clear that power generated through heat is called a thermal power plant. This was indicated as a separate category therein only for highlighting the extent of its share as a source in overall power generation. 21. The word 'thermal' when understood both in its literal as well as dictionary meaning, would evidently make it clear that power generated through heat is called a thermal power plant. Since atomic energy is used to liberate thermal energy, which is then transformed into electric energy, it would certainly be covered by 'thermal' as mentioned in Entry 14 of Schedule-I at the relevant time. A thermal power plant includes power generation through heat from all fossil fuels viz. Coal, lignite, petroleum products, natural gas, biogas, and also atomic/nuclear. Any one of these can be used to generate heat, which may eventually lead to reproduction of power. This question directly fell for consideration of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited, supra, whether any thermal power generating industry, which is operated by natural gas or is gas based, would come within the purview of Entry 14 of Schedule I of the Cess Act. While entry in the present case specifically includes the thermal and diesel, the entry at the relevant time in the aforesaid case substituted vide GSR No.377 (E) 93 dated 16.04.1993, provided as under:- “Power (Thermal, Diesel and Hydel) generating industries”. 22. Argument similar to the one advanced before this Court was also raised before the Andhra Pradesh High Court that Cess Act is fiscal statute and same must be construed strictly. Those power generating industries, which are gas based would not come within the purview of Entry 14, supra. Reliance in that case was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Member Secretary, A.P. State Board for prevention and Control of Water Pollution vs. A.P. Rayons Limited – AIR 1989 SC 611 and Britannia Industries Limited vs. T.N. Pollution Control Board – (2000) 9 SCC 68 , which two judgments, apart from few others, have also been relied on by the petitioner before this court. Relevant discussion made in para 8 to 12 of the judgment in A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited, supra, is reproduced as under:- “8. Relevant discussion made in para 8 to 12 of the judgment in A.P. Gas Power Corporation Limited, supra, is reproduced as under:- “8. There cannot be any dispute whatsoever that the said Act being a fiscal statute must be construed strictly, but as has been observed by the Apex Court in A.P. Rayons (supra) that while interpreting a taxing statute there is no room for intendment there is no equality on the part of the tax there is no presumption as to tax, nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, one has to look fairly at the language used. It is therefore trite that for the purpose of finding out as to whether the provisions of a fiscal statute are attracted in a given case or not; what is necessary to be considered is to look fairly at the language used. 9. The words "thermal, diesel and hydel" are within bracket. The emphasis of the said Act is therefore on the power generating industries. Any thermal power generating industries, which are operated by any method other than coal, are also included therein. It is in the aforementioned context the word "thermal" assumes relevance. The word "thermal" has been defined in chambers Dictionary to mean "pertaining to or producing heat". Thus, the purpose of a thermal power generating industry would be to produce power through it. In other words, by reason of such thermal power industries heat energy is converted into electrical energy. 10. Even if commonsense meaning is attributed to the word "thermal", the same result would be achieved without causing violence to the language used. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if a literal meaning or a commonsense meaning is attributed to the word "thermal", the same would mean, where power is generated through generation of heat. 12. Item No. 14 of the Schedule appended to the said Act must be interpreted in the context of the object of the statute. Even if "gas" is used as a fuel, it is not in dispute that "water" is used in the process of generation of power.” 23. 12. Item No. 14 of the Schedule appended to the said Act must be interpreted in the context of the object of the statute. Even if "gas" is used as a fuel, it is not in dispute that "water" is used in the process of generation of power.” 23. Contention that the water is consumed by the plant of the petitioner only for cooling purposes but during this process, the water does not get polluted within the meaning of “pollution” as defined in Section 2(e) of the Pollution Act, also cannot be accepted for stated reasons. The word “pollution” has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Pollution Act to mean such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water which may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms. Undeniably, the petitioner consumes enormous amount of water to push water past the nuclear core for carrying the heat elsewhere and for condenser cooling. As per assertion made by respondents in para 3 of the counter affidavit, apart from using bulk of water for cooling purposes, the petitioner also consumes 11,67,660 kilo liter of water per month for domestic purposes, which also leads to discharge of 'sewage effluent' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Pollution Act. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that in the plant of the petitioner heat is generated by atomic fusion and for cooling down this heat, enormous amount of water is drawn from river Chambal. 24. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that such discharge of water takes place after it is treated in any neutralization plant to reduce its temperature as per the minimum national acceptance standards laid down by the State Pollution Board, before it is discharged into the river again. 24. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that such discharge of water takes place after it is treated in any neutralization plant to reduce its temperature as per the minimum national acceptance standards laid down by the State Pollution Board, before it is discharged into the river again. Increase of temperature in the process, is certainly physical alteration of the properties of the water and it would be squarely covered by definition of 'pollution' as it is likely to create nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to life, health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms. No such clarification has been made even in regard to use of domestic water, which obviously is used for the purpose other than cooling of the plant. There is therefore no reason not to treat water so discharged as 'trade effluent' as defined in Section 2(k) of the Pollution Act. 25. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate committee cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, infirmity or error apparent on the record. This court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 26. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.