LexMUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SATISH CHANDRA JAIN AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. SATISH CHANDRA JAIN AND ANR. ETC. ETC. NOVEMBER 15, 1995 B [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961: Ss.164(2), 164(3)-Cattle Registration and Market·f~e-Lease for C recovery of-Lessee collecting fee but with-holding a part of contract amount-Recovery proceedings by Municipal Council against lessee-Lessee challenging collection of fee as invalid on ground that no servic s were rendered by Municipal Council at the place of cattle fail~Held, fee was validly imposed-Municipal Council provided necessa1y facilities at the place of cattle fair-Lessee clothed with auth01ity to collect tax and having actually D collected the fee, cannot withhold contracted money. The appellant-Municipal Council granted to the respondent a le.ase for a year for recovery of cattle registration fee and market fee in respect of the transactions made at the place of cattle fair. Since the appellant did E not deposit a part of the Contract-money, the Municipal Council initiated proceedings against him for recovery of the balance amount. The respon- dent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the proceedings on the ground that the fees sought to be collected from him being in the nature of tax was invalid as no services were rendered by the Municipal Council at the place of cattle fair; and that in the event of imposition of F cattle registration fee being held beyond the power of Municipal Council the market fee too required to be quashed as it was inextricably added up in the contracted amount. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the Municipal Council filed the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The respondent cannot resist the recovery proceedings on the pretext that no services were rendered or were deficient at the site where business of sale of cattle was transacted. The High Court seemingly overlooked the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette dated October 23, H 1950 wherein the Municipal Council had justified enhancement of fees 274 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONlv. S.C.JAIN 275 from 1-2 paise to a rupee because the Municipal Council found it difficult A to put up with the expenses of sanitation, lighting etc. at the place of cattle fair. It is otherwise a matter of common knowledge that where a cattle fair is held and business transacted, certain basic facilities are normally provided by the Municipal Council, such as sanitation, space for storage and sale of fodder, troughs for drinking water for the cattle, pegs and B mongers to tie cattle, drinking water for human being visiting the area, as also eating places for them. Quid pro quo was, therefore, writ large with the imposition of fee. [276-H; 277-A-C; D] Dha11iram v.Ja11apada Sabha Ja11jgir, (1965) MP L.J. 408, referred to. 2. The respondent, who was clothed with the authority of a tax collector and actually collected the fee, cannot be allowed to say that he had collected the fee wrongly and on that basis he would not pay the contracted money, since he had to reimburse himself by a wrong collection. The High Court overlooked an important aspect of the case as to the c maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent. D [277-F-G] 3. The fee was validly imposed and sequally the portion of the fee representing market fee is automatically in order. [277-H; 278-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3360 of E 1979 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.79 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 391 of 1972. P.N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg, D.P. Mohanty, (N.P) B.K. Satija and AK. F Sanghi for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Civil Appeal No. 3360 of 1979 : A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, quashed on a writ petition, the bill and notice of demand, issued against the respondent under section 164 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, on the basis that the fees sought to be collected from the respondent fetched him no quid pro quo. G The respondent herein was granted by auction a lease by the H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Municipal Council, Waraseoni for a year from l.4;1971 to 31.3.1972 for recovery of cattle registration fee and market fee, popularly known in that region as "Baithaki". The contracted money was Rs. 1,75,000. The respon- dent did not pay 'the whol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.