Of the two Santacruz residents, while Devraj Kant had installed a plastic tank on a loft in his house, his neighbour Usha Prabhu, had a galvanised tank. The tanks were found during an inspection by the Pest Control Department of the BMC and both the residents were fined Rs 250 each and were asked to remove the tanks.

Kant and Prabhu have now moved the Sessions Court through Advocate Hemant Kenjalkar and Advocate Subhash Prabhu in appeal against the conviction.Additional Sessions Judge Abhay Thipsay earlier this month admitted the appeal and directed that notices be issued to the BMC.

While filing the appeal before the Sessions Court, Advocate Hemant Kenjalkar and Advocate Subhash Prabhu argued that Section 381 (A) of the BMC Act does not mention that commissioner's permission was required for installing a plastic or a galvanised tank in a house. The appeal further submitted that the usage of such terms as ``dug'' or ``constructed'' in sub-section (1) and ``fill up'' or ``demolish'' in sub-section 2 (A), in fact, suggested that it was never the intention of the legislature to include plastic and galvanised tanks under the purview of section 381 (A). They argued that these phrases could be used only for water tanks that were either constructed or dug up and that could be undone by demolition or filling up. And since plastic and galvanised tanks are neither constructed nor dug and nor can they be filled up or demolished, its obvious that they do not comply to thedefinition of tanks as provided under Section 381 (A) of the BMC Act.

The application further submitted that the metropolitan magistrate erred in interpreting that a water tank could not be ``kept'' without the permission of the commissioner. Advocate Kenjalkar and Advocate Prabhu have prayed that the conviction be quashed and that the records and proceedings of the case be called from the 39th court, Vile Parle.