LexBHASKAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus JHARSUGUDA MUNICIPALITY & OTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- '. .. 401 A ,•-· BHASKAR -TEXTILE MILLS LTD. v. JHARSUGUDA MUNICIPALITY & OTHER. january, fl, !984 [R S. VENKATARMIAH AND .R. B. MISRA; JJ;J B Octroi dufy1 imposition of-Validitf of-t~e- i~position of Octroi. duty 'under secfio"n 131(1)(kk) OJ-the Orissa Municipal Aci, 1950 to. a-village constituted as ·a Grama earlier under Section 3 .of the Orissa Gram P!Afi:hayat Act, 1964_ but la,_ter , C included in an.area of a MuniCip'ality under Section 4 of the-1950 Act-Constitution oflqJfia, 1950, Article 19(1)g. • ' - The appellant Textile Mills is a COn1pan; duly.incorporated u~der tfe Indi.an' Companies Act 1956, having its mi~l~ located at ·Village Ektali ui:ider the" Jharsu- guda police station in distriCt Sambalpur, Orissa. The company mainly carries on. sPinning of Cotton which in the 'Il"Ui.nUfacturing process is. transformed from IoOse ·fibfes into finished yarll The area undeir the Ektali village 1n which the appellallt's factory .was located was earlier.OOnstituteci as a Gra~a by a declaration mad(:~der Section· 3 of the OriSsa Grama Panch3.yat Act 1964.~ .On or about March 25, 1976 Jha~uguda Municipalit)' passed a resolution· for ·ihe inciusion- of the Ektali and other villages within ~ts jurisdiction: After considering the objec~ tiOns aad representations aga~nst. the inclusion ·of EktaH viliage in the Municipal Limit and after follo\ving once again the othC_r statutory requireriient of furtheF notice.etc., .·the ·stite 9overnment p~bliscd·.:in the O.rissa Gazette "dated 1i;8.1975 a notification ·aiJl)rovirig. the inclusion. Soon thereafter on September .1. 1975. the said Jharsuguda M~nicipalitY. sent a-)etter to' the appellallt 'dirdcting. it to .pay octroi ·d~ty at the rate of .1_ percent ad valorem on cotton as so~n as it entefed the Municipal check µOst for the purpose of its being spun into yarn; The l~vy of octroi was challenged b; :tiling. a ."j,etiti~n under Ar.ts. 226 cind 227 of the Constitution ·on Various grounds. but :the writ PetitioO: .was, dismissed. Petition .seeking :Permission for issu8J?.~ of a ce-rtificate under Article 133(1) of . the Constitution was also dismissed. ·Hence the appeal aftci: phtaining SpeCiaI Leave· · of the Court. - - Dismissing the apPeal · the Cou.11. HELD : 1 .. cOnSidering fhe case from any -aspect" the imposition of octroi duty under sOOtion 5 ·of the. Orissa Municipal Act, .1950 does not stiffer from any infirmity [ 413 HJ · D E F ,G 2; The levy~ being neither an unrea"so.Oable one nor alsO exeessive, cailnot - 'he cb~ll~nged on the grourld that there is violation o.f Article 19(1)(g) .of the Con· H stitution. [4130]- · A B c D 402 .. .. S.UPRBME COURT.REEPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R, .. . : 3. It is tr.ue that when a duly constituted Grama unde; sub-section (1) of Sectio~ 3 of the Grama Panchayat Act is to go out of existence an order of the· Magistrate cancel_lin,g the Notification in tenns of sUb-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act is a pre-requisite. ·But in the instant case the Grain Pallchayat Dever challellged the No~ification of inclusion of the Village Ektali in Jharsuguda Munici- palit)'. Rather .. on the. other ~and the grain panChayat was -0onsUiteci•before the fmpugned notifi"¢ation dated 12th August 1975 was issued.' [ 406 H; 407 .Al .. 4. ·rhe prOviso. to sub-section 1 of Scctioil' 4 o( the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 has no application to the present 9ase and th(lt cannot be taken to be a ground · rO~ging thC.No-tific-ation fo2 inclusion of Village Ektau "in th;JhITTs~gUda · Municipality.. A bare pcrsUal of the proviso clearly indicates that the requircme.nt is that t"'.O·thirds of the adult .. ,in1l~ population of the- to\v"n ·to which it ;efers should be engaged in non·agricultural pursuits The proViso applies not to all the caluses of sU.b-section (1) of sccton.fit.' but it applies only to clau~ (a) of sub·section (1) of Section 4, bocause it is clause (a) of·section4 (1) which talks of town. [408 E-Fl · . . 5. The contention that the .~bjection"'faised by the appellant agaimfi;fthe inclu~io2,_ of the. village in qu~sti~n i~to M~nicipality has nOt beei1 consider_ed by the Sta~s no ,force. The obJectlon 1S required to be made through. the Magistrate of the Di~trict. Naturally the District Magistrate. while f0rwarding the objection to. the State GOvernmerit made his comment. The Revenue Divisional Officer who intervenes. in the ch.annal of communication between t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.