LAWS(ALL)-1972-7-36

CITY BOARD OF MUSSOORIE Vs. AMOLAK RAM OBERAI

Decided On July 12, 1972
City Board Of Mussoorie Appellant
V/S
Amolak Ram Oberai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of this group of nine Special Appeals 8 have been filed by the City Board Mussoorie. The ninth one is a cross -appeal filed by Shri Amolak Ram Oberai. Shri Oberai along with one Khem Chand had filed a group of writ petitions challenging the demand and levy of toll tax on account of the fact that Khem Chand while driving the vehicle owned by Mr. Oberai took it on a strip of land which the City Board claimed vested in it.

(2.) It appears that Mr. Oberai is a resident within the municipal limits of Dehra Dun. He owns a godown at Rajpur within the Dehra Dun Municipality. There are some limestone quarries in village Karwa in the district of Dehra Dun. The quarries are situate outside the limits of the City Board, Mussoorie. Mr. Oberai had employed Khem Chand as his driver. Khem Chand used to drive the private carrier owned by Mr. Oberai from his residence or godown to the quarry and return from there. The private carrier passes through a strip of land which the City Board claims vests in it. According to the City Board Mussoorie the Appellant was liable to pay toll on the vehicle when it enters the disputed strip of land. The Board also levied toll on the driver of the vehicle in addition to the toll levied on the vehicle. The Appellant, however, refused to pay toll whereupon the City Board launched a large number of criminal prosecutions in the Court of the SDM, Mussoorie and the Naib Tehsildar, Mussoorie in relations to each strip that the Appellant's vehicle made while going to and returning from the quarry.

(3.) The learned Single Judge held that under the rules framed by the City Board, Mussoorie, no toll was leviable on the driver but that toll was payable on the vehicle, even though it was empty, when it passed through the disputed strip of land. He also held that the Transit Pass Rules were not applicable to empty motor vehicles. The learned Judge did not go into the factual controversy whether the disputed strip of land vested in the City Board and proceeded on the assumption that it did.