PALANPUR KARIANA MERCHANTS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in Spl.C.A. No. 14032 of 1994 have preferred the present L.P.A. against the dismissal of the petition by the learned single Judge of this Court on 19-4-1995. Respondent No. 4 Palanpur Municipality had decided in the meeting of the General Body dated 13-11-1981 to revise the octroi rate by passing necessary Resolution. Thereafter, a public notice was issued on 12- 3-1982 inviting objections to the octroi hike. Objections were received by the Municipality. But it seems that no action on the same was taken and on 18-12-1985, the Administrator of the said Municipality gave public hearing of the said objections and after hearing the said objectors and considedring their objections decided to give effect to the Resolution of the hike of octroi rates and then moved the State Government as per the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Government thereafter passed an order dated 23-1-1989 sanctioning the proposal of the Municipality and thereafter a public notice was issued about the sanction and revised rates of octroi which were to come into effect from 1-10-1989.

(2.) Present appellants-petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 14032 of 1994 on 29- 12-1994. The appellants herein contended that the respondents had not complied with the provisions of Sec. 101(c) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, the respondent's levying of the octroi was affecting the fundamental rights of the appellants and the State Government had not applied its mind and had not considered the objections raised to the said hike for the octroi duty and therefore, in the circumstances, the appellants-petitioners wanted to quash the said decision of respondent No. 4 who hiked the octroi rate.

(3.) The learned single Judge has considered all the objections on behalf of the appellant-petitioners and the cases cited on behalf of the appellants-petitioners and has come to the conclusion that the petition deserves to be rejected as none of the grounds raised by the appellants-petitioners could be accepted. He accordingly dismissed the said S.C.A. on 19-4-1995.