P&H High Court Rejects State’s Appeal on Water-Tariff Dispute; Says No Notification Authorising Per-Tap Charges

Case Name: State of Punjab and Others vs. Sadhu Ram (deceased) through his LR
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025
Citation: RSA-2221-2001
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the State’s second appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. It held that the State failed to produce any valid notification issued by the Public Health Department authorising the levy of revised or per-tap water charges. The Court ruled that the letter relied upon by the appellants did not confer any statutory power to impose enhanced rates. It further held that without a lawful notification, the State could not revise tariffs or demand additional charges. The Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent decrees.

Summary: The plaintiff sought a declaration, injunction, restoration of original water-supply rates, installation of a functional meter, and refund of excess charges for Connection No. PB-45. The State argued that per-tap billing followed government policy, and the suit was defective for lack of notice under Section 80 CPC and improper valuation. The Trial Court decreed the suit and restored old rates. The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. In second appeal, the State contended that increasing costs justified tariff revision. The Court examined the record and found no notification authorising such charges. It held that reliance on a general letter addressed to urban local bodies could not justify levying per-tap rates on the plaintiff. It also noted that the plaintiff had not given any binding undertaking to accept future rate revisions. The Court confirmed that billing must follow only lawful notifications issued by competent authority.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent judgments in favour of the plaintiff were upheld. All pending applications were disposed of.