TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus URMILLA KOTHARI

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 20-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
v. 
URMILLA KOTHARI 
January 20, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Ka_rnataka Municipalities Act, 1964-Sec. 
124-Karnataka Mu11icipalities 
T_axatu:~n .Rules, 1965-Rule 26-Trncks pa,rsing on the highways within muni-
,.t 
c1pal /lm1ts-Whether octroi payable-Meaning of "brought into" and "imme-
diate exportation". 
The r~spWldent is a transporter. The respondent lifts the iron ore in his 
trucks from Hubli Railway yard and carries it to Karwar and Belekeri harbours. 
The trucks of the respondent have to pass in the course of transit through the 
limits of various Town Municipalities situate on the highway 
of which 
the 
appellant happens to be one. 
The respondent does not nnload or re-load the 
iron ore at any intermediary point or stop. The appellant passed a resolution 
in purported exercise of s. 124 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act; 1964 read 
with rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipalities Taxation Rules, 1965, imposing a 
fee of Re. 1 /- per trip of each tmck. The respondent filed a 
writ petition 
challenging the levy of the fee. 
The learned single Judge of the High Court 
<li~missed the writ petition. The Division Bench, however, allowed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal by ce1iificate, 
HELD : The present case is not covered by "any article or animal brought 
into the municipal limits for the purpose of immediate exportation" mentioned 
in s. 124. "Brought into" and "immediate exportation" do not 
comprehend 
within their sweep the coptinuous process of tran~it of goods by vehicles which 
merely use the State High W1y passing through the areas which lie within 1.he 
municipal limits. In the instant case, the iron ore is carried in the trucks of 
the respondent which merely pass through the areas which lie within the .nuni-
cipal limits and is not unloaded and reloaded at any place within the mc.1icipal 
areas. The continuity or continuous process of the carriage of iron ore is not 
in any way, in fact, broken within the municipal limits. The respondent can-
not be said either to bring in or export the iron ore as contemplated by s. 124 
of the Act read with Rule 26 of the Rules and, as such, is not liable to pay 
octroi or what is styled as supervision fee. 
A contrary interpretation 
would 
make rail borne goods passing through the Railway Station within the limits of 
the municipality liable to the imposition of the fee on their arrival at the Rail-
way Station and departure therefrom which could not be the intention of the 
"Legislature. [662 G-H, 664 B, G-H, 665 A-BJ 
Tke Central India Spinning and Weavi1111 
and 
Manufacturing 
Company 
~-
Limited, the Empire Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal Committee, Nagpur [19581 
SCR 1102=AIR 1958 SC 352, followed. 
Brown v. State of Maryla11d (1827) 12 Wheat -419, 442: 6 L. Ed. 678, 686 
and Wilson v. Robertson 24 L.J.Q.B. 185, quoted with approval. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 
1386 of 
1~76. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-76 of the Karnataka 
High Court in W.A. No. 150 of 1976. 
H 
H. B. Datar, Sanjeev Aggarwal and R. B. Datar for the Appellant. 
S. T. Desai, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri 
for 
Respondent. 
TOWN MUNICIPAL v. URMILLA KOTHARI (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
661 
The Judgment of the Court was del~vered by 
. 
JASWANT SINGH, J. 
This appeal by certificate which is directed 
against the judgment and order dated September 21, 1976, of tho 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore reversing the judgment and 
order dated March 3, 1976 of a Single Judge of .that Court dismissing 
writ petition No. 6945 of 1975 ·filed by the respondent involves a 
substantial question of law of general public importance relating to 
the validity of the levy of what is styled as 'supervision fee' 
under 
section 124 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 
(hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act') read with rule 26 of the Karnataka Munici-
palities Tax(!tion Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 
The facts of the case lie in a short compass and may be stated as 
follows:-
Iron ore which is extracted from its mine heads in Hospet Taluka 
is brought over and stocked in Hubli Railyard by the Mysore Minerals 
Limited which is a Government undertaking. 
Having taken up the 
contract of transhipment of the iron ore from Hubli Railyard to Karwar 
and Belekeri harbours, the Mysore Minerals Limited has sublet the 
· same to the West End Minerals and Exports Private Limi

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