LexSHAHDARA (DELHI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY CO. LTD. versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SHAHDARA (DELHI) SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY CO. LTD. B c D E F G v. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, SAHARANPUR March 21, 1967 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886) and Indian Railways Act, 1890 (I of 1890)-N"r!'ow-gauge railway between Shchdara and Saha- ranpur----Originally registered as a Tramway under the 1886 Act-Rail- ways Act made applicable to it in 1901-Company whether a 'railway' or a 'tramway' for the purpose of exemption from terminal tax levied by Saharanpur municipality under item 2 of Schedule B to the rules undtr the U.P. Municipalities Act I of 1918. The appellant company ran a narrow-gauge railway between Shah- dara and Saharanpur. As it operated partly within the Municipal area of Saharanpur the Municipal Board of that place sought to subject railway stores and materials brought within the munici~al area to terminal tax as provided by the Rules framed under the Untied Provinces Municipa- lities Act, 1916, as amended by Act I of 1918. The exemption from terminal tax given to railway stores and materials by item 2 to Schedule B of the said rules was denied to the appellant company on the ground that it was a 'tramway' and not a 'railway'. The company had been originally registered in 1905 under the Indian Tramways Act, 1886, (Act 11 of 1886); in 1907 the whole of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, (Act I of 1890) with the exception of s. 135 bad been extended to the com- pany by the Governor-General-in-Council. The Company's claim that it was a 'railway' entitled to the exemption under item 2 of Schedule B aforesaid, was rejected by the Municipal authorities as well as in appeal, by the Additional District Magistrate. The company therefore filed a writ petition before the High Court which was rejected. By special leave appeal was filed to this Court. It was c~ntended on behalf of the appellant that : (i) in the absence ~f "'!Y spcc1~ definition contained in the provisions granting the exemp- tion 1n quesllon, the expression 'railway' occurring in item 2 of Schedule B of the ;!'erm}nal Tax Rules must bea·r the commonly understood mean- ing of a c~r;1ag~ of passenger and goods, on iron rails"; (ii) by virtue of the defiml!on m s. 311(2) of the Gcvermnent of India Act 1935 and the provts1on corresponding to it in the Constitution viz Art 366(20) the ~ppellan!'.~ system though registered under the Tra~way; ~~· wa\ a ra1lwa~, (111) the mere fact that s. 135 of the Railways Act . not h een applied to the appellant's system was not a deci,ive factor against t e appella;it a. assumed by the High Court. It was not in dis- pute that appellants system had all the features of a railway. . HELJ? : Neit~~r the Municipal Act nor the Terminal Tax Rules give i? s~ecial defimt1on of the expression 'railway' and there is nothing in t e said Ac! or Rules to indicate that the word 'railway' in item 2 of H Schedule B " us~d. only to refer to a 'railway' registered under the Rail- ~a~s Ac~ or t~ hm1t the generality of the expre'lsion 'railway' in any way. n er t osc c1rcumstances, if the appe1lant was a 'railway• in fact_ a~ comm~nly .understood-there did not appear to be any controversy on the pomt-11 would be a railway notwithstanding the fact that it was re- L5Sup. C.1./67---3 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1967] 3 S.C.R. gistered as a 'tramway' under the Tramways Act. The legislature itself had applied the 11rovisions of the Railway Act to the appellant, and the appellant also satisfied the definition of a 'railway' under the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution. [254B-D] If the appellant was a 'railway' otherwise, the mere fact that the provisions of s. 135 of the Railways Act had not been applied to it, was of no consequence. [251H] Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company v. Thornton Urban Council, L.R. [1907] 1 K.B.D. 568, Thornton Urban Council v. Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company, L.R. [1909] AC. 264 and Tort£nham Urban Council v. Metropolitan Electric Tramways, Ltd., L.R. [1913] A.C. 702, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1323 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscel- laneous Writ No. 3567 of 1965. A B c Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-General and N. H. Hingoranl, for D the appellant. R. K. Garg, D. K. Agarwala and M. V. Goswami, for respon- dent No. 1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.