KIRPAL SINGH DUGGAL versus MUNICIPAL BOARD, GHAZIABAD

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 26-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
KIRPAL SINGH DUGGAL 
v, 
MUNICIPAL BOARD, GHAZIABAD 
March 26, 1968 
B 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
U.P. Municipalities Act, 191&-Exemption under s. 157(3)-Rule.• 
requiring application for refund within six months of payment-Applica-
tion for refund beyond six montlis-S11i1 for recovery.-lurisdictlon of 
CivU Court, if barred. 
The appellant transported, between 
August 
1953 and March 1955 
certain materials in execution of a contract to supply goods fdr use by 
the Government of India. 
The respondent Municipality 
collected toll 
while the appellant's trucks were passing through the toll barrier. The 
appellant obtained in June 1955 a certificate from the aitthority concerned 
that the goods transported were "meant for Government work and had 
become the property of the Government". The appellant then applied to 
the Municipality for refund of the amount paid pursuant to the exemp-
tion granted by the Government Order under s. 
157(3) of the U.P. 
Municipalities Act, 1916. The respondent declined to refund the amount. 
In an action against the respondent the trial court decreed the claim. In 
appeal the Civil Judge decreed the claim only for the amount paid after 
December 13. 1954. 
The High Court affirmed the order of the Civil 
Judge. Both the Civil Judge and the High Court took the view that bi• 
the Rules framed under the Act an application for refund 
\Vithin six 
months from the date of actual payment is a condition precedent for 
rcf\lnd of the toll. Allowing the appeal. this Court, 
HELD : The Civil Jbdge and tho High Court exalted, what were 
merely matters of procedure which the Municipality \\'as c°:titled to 
require compliance \Vith in granting rcfunJ, into conditions precedent for 
the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The rules framed by 
the Government relating to the procedure to be followed in giving effect 
to the exemptions on April 15, 1939, do not purport to bar the jurisdiction 
of the Civil Court if the procedure is not followed. 
If these procedural 
requirements are not fulfilled, the Municipality may decline to refund 
the toll and relegate the claimant to a suit. It would then be open to the 
party claiming a refund to seek the assistance of the Court, and to prove 
by evidence which is in law admissible that the goods transported by him 
fell within the order issued under s. 157(3) of the Act. [555 B-FJ. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
725 
of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 3, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 
122 of 1961. 
Bishan Narain and Harbans Singh, for the appellant. 
Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. Between August 1, 1953 and March 28, 1955, the 
appellant transported 521 truck-loads of "stone-grit" and other 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 3 S.C.R. 
materials from Delhi to Muradnagar in execution of a contract to 
A 
supply goods for use by the Government of India. The trucks of 
the appellant had to pass through the toll barrier of the Munici-
pality of Ghaziabad, and toll at the rate of Rs. 8 per truck was 
collected from the appellant. The appellant obtained a certificate 
from the Garrison Engineer, M.E.S., Meerut, on June 10, 1955, 
that the goods transported by the appellant "were meant for Gov· 
B 
ernment work and had become the property of the Government". 
The appellant then applied on June 14, 1955, to the Municipality 
of Ghaziabad for refund of the amount of toll paid pursuant to 
the exemption granted by Government Order under s. 157(3) of 
the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and the Municipality having 
declined to refund the amount, the appellant served the statutory 
notice and commenced an action against the Municipality in the 
C 
Court of the Munsif at Ghaziabad on February 11, 1956, for a 
decree for Rs. 4,300. The trial court decreed the claim. In 
appeal, the Ilnd Civil Judge, Meerut, upheld the claim of the ap-
pellant only for the amounts paid after December 13, 1954. The 
High Court of Allahabad affirmed the order of the Civil Judge. 
The appellant has appealed to this Court. 
D 
The relevant provisions of the Act, the rules and the orders 
issued by the Government may first be noticed. 
Under s. 128 
of th~ U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the Municipal Board is, sub-
ject to any general rules or special orders of the State Govern-
ment in that behalf, c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.