URMILA KOTHARI Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KALGHATGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner who is the owner of a fleet of motor vehicles registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act - of 1939) hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act') and classified as public earners or commonly called as trucks or lorries (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicles'), is engaged in the business of transporting iron ore from the Rail yard of Hubli to the ports of Karwar and Balekeri The vehicles are subject to taxes under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 35)1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1957 Act') and the Eules framed thereunder. In the course of their journey, the vehicles have to pass through a small roar section of a State High way situated in the town limits of Kalgatgi Town Muncipality of Dharwar District, which was formerly a part of the erstwhile State of Bomay. On their onward or return journey, the vehicles do not stop and pick up any cargo within the municipal limits of Kalgatgi Town Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality.'). Notwithstanding the same, the Municipality imposed a fee called 'the supervision fee' in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 124 of theKarnataka Municipalities Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 22/64) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1964 Act') at the rate of Rs. 2/- on each vehicle for the use of the road section in the municipal limits the validity of which was challenged, by the petitioner before this Court successfully, the judgment of which is since reported in 1976(2) Kanataka Law Journal, page 314 and the, same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 1976 decided on 20-1-1977 since reported in A.I.H. 1977 Supreme Court, page 873. Evidently with the object of collecting the same amount in another form, the Municipality in its Notification No. TMC- 291-1977-78 dated 26th November 1977 published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary dated 30-11-1977 (Ext. C.) has inter-alia resolved to levy and collect toll tax from motor vehicles from 1st January, 1978. The clisr of motor vehicles and the levy of toll tax or toll rates in the said Notification read thus: -

(2.) The petitioner has asserted that the road passing through the town limits of Kalgatgi town is a State High way and that motor vehicles registered under the 1939 Act are absolutely exempted from payment of tolls under S 19 of the 1957 Act and therefore the levy and collection of- toll tax by the Municipality is unauthorised and is illegal. In its return, the respondent does not deny that the road section passing through the town limits of Kalgatgi is a State High way. But it has sought to justify the levy principally on 4 grounds viz., (l)that the levy is authorised by S. 94(1) (b) (in) read with Sch. III of the 1964 Act, (2) that the provisions contained in the 1957 Act are impliedly repealed by the provisions of the 1964 Act, (3) that in the absence of exemption granted by the Government under S. 16 of the 1957 Act, the levy of toll is authorised and (4) that S. 19 has its application only to a law that was in force as on the day the 1957 Act came into force and has no application to a law that has come into force later.

(3.) Shri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for (the petitioner strenuously contended that S. 19 of the 1957 Act prohibits a Municipality from levying any tax or toll on motor vehicles registered in the State, of Karnataka or any other part of India and therefore it is not permissible for the respondent to levy or collect any toll on motor vehicles owned by the petitioner. Shri B. Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel for the respondent, refuted the contention urged by Shri Ramachandra and supported the levy and (Collection of toll by the respondent on all the grounds urged in its return.