LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHARANPUR

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 08-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
A 
•. 
B 
c 
D 
,. 
E 
' . ,• 
F 
~ 
' 
G 
H 
LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS 
v. 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHARANPUR 
December 8, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., 
K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, V. 
RAMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JJ.] 
Saharanpur Municipality Rules for Toils, 1949, r. 8(a)-Lorries un. 
loading goods in railway s ation within municipal limits-Goods intended 
for export by rail-Applicability of rule. 
The appellant-mills, was situate 
outside 
the 
municipal 
limits 
of 
Sahar;npur and was expo.-ting a large quan:ity of cloth to various places 
in Ind.a. 
Its lorr.es loaded with balei fi st entered the mun.cipal limits 
at some place near the appellant's prem.se; and then proceeded towards 
the railway station where they were unloaded 
without 
any ·soiting or 
change of bulk. 
Before reaching the station the lorries had to pass out 
of the municipal barrier near the station, which was meant to serve as an 
import barrier for goods coming into the municipality from the railway 
station and as an export barrier for goods going outJlde the municipality. 
But the barrier was not placed exactly whe e the municipal lim.tJ end; it 
was some distance ins de the municipal limits, which were beyond 
the 
railway s~ation. Therefore,. after the bale; were unloaded at the railway 
station, they remained within the municipal limits 
till they were taken 
away by rail to destination; for which they we:e booked. 
Under r. 8(a) of the Rules for Tolli, as in 1949, which were appli-
cable in the present ca1e, if a person in charge of a lorry laden with tax-
able pods entering the municipal limits, declared that they were meant 
for immediate export from the municipal Lm!ts without sorting or change 
of bulk, he was entitled to a transit pass which had to be presented within 
half an hour at the export barrier and no toll tax would have to be paid. 
The appellant claimed that it was entitled to get the transit pa;s under 
the rule, but the respondent did not agree. 
The 
appellant, 
therefore, 
paid the toll tax under protest and filed a writ petition in the High Court, 
but it was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that all that the rule 
required in order to entitle it to a tran>it 
pass and escape the toll tax, 
was, that its lorriei should go out of the export barrier even though the 
goods may still be within mun'cipal limits. 
HELD (Per Chief Justice, Wanchoo., Ramaswami and Satyanarayana 
· Raju, JJ) : The intention of the rule was that lorries, after entering the 
municipal limits, were to pass out of the 
same with the 
least possible 
delay. 
Before a person could claim the benefit of the rule, it was neces-
sary to satisfy the cond't'on that the lorry reached the expo :t 
barrier 
within the time limited by the rule and with the goods in the same con-
dition in which they were when the lorry entered the 
mun'cipal area. 
The half an hour's period provided in the rule Wai for the 
purpose of 
checking at the export barrier that the lorry oa;sed out of the mun'cipal 
area as soon as possib1e. 
Therefore, where i: was not in dispute that 
the gooch did not go out of the municipal 1 mits e·1en after pa·1Sing the 
export barrier, 
and were unloaded at the ra'lway station which 
was 
960 
'SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 
within the municipal limits, they would not be entitled to a transit pass. 
A 
[964 E-F, H; 965 A-BJ 
The crucial words in the rule are "meant for immediate export from 
such limits without sorting and change of bulk." The rule contemplates 
that the goods must leave the municipal limits as soon as possible without 
sorting or change of bulk, that is, in the same vehicle and their passing 
through the export barrier is taken to show that they are going out of 
the municipal limits. 
However, as a barrier is not neces>arily at 
the B 
end of the municipal limits, for its placing depends upon convenience, the 
reasonable interpretation of the rule is that where the municipal limits 
extend for some distance beyond the expoot barrier, the ·goods ·must go 
out of the municipal limits after passing the export barrier, if they are 
to be entitled to a tr~nsit pass. 
But it does not follow from the 
fact 
that the goods have arrived at the export barrier 
within half an hour 
from the time of the .issue of a transit pass and have passed the export 
barrier, that the goods are "meant for immediate export from municipal 
C 
limits" if the goods are not sent out 

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