NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of Writ Petitions are filed praying for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ declaring the Supplement to Prakasam District Gazette No. 5, dated 12-2-2002 insofar as it seeks to levy a tax of Rs. 30/- on loading and unloading from lorries under Entries 35(b) and 35(c) at Page No.11 of the said Gazette notification and the letter dated 30-4-2002 bearing Roc. No. 4189/2001/A issued by the 2nd respondent, as being without jurisdiction, ultra vires, contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to collect any tax from petitioners in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) The writ petitioners in these Writ Petitions are the proprietors or the partners, as the case may be, of the transport operators and in all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners had questioned the Supplement to Prakasam District Gazette No. 5, dated 12-2-2002 insofar as it proposes to levy a tax of Rs. 30.00 on all lorries for loading and unloading within the limits of Chirala Municipality and also the letter dated 30-4-2002 of the 2nd respondent directing the Transport operators to pay Rs. 30.00 to the 3rd respondent-Contractor as per the Gazette notification. The stand taken by the respective petitioners as reflected from the affidavits filed in support of the respective Writ Petitions may be summarized briefly as follows: The writ petitioners have registered the lorries under A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and they are having valid goods carriage permits and certain of the vehicles also possess inter State carriage permits and the petitioners have been paying the motor vehicles tax as well as carriage permit fees on all the vehicles and hence they are not liable to pay any further tax or fees on their vehicles. It was also pleaded that the Council of the 1st respondent-Municipality issued a notification for the year 2002-2003, published in Prakasam District Gazette, dated 12-2-2002 proposing to collect a sum of Rs. 30.00 for lorries for loading and unloading in Chirala Municipality limits. The 1st respondent, purporting to rely on the opinion of the Standing Counsel as well as the above notification, issued a letter dated 30-4-2002 directing all the Transport operators to pay Rs. 30.00 to the 3rd respondent-Contractor. The impugned levy of Rs. 30.00 on lorries for loading and unloading in Chirala Municipality limits is without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965. It was further pleaded that Section 81 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965, inter alia, empowers the Council after following the procedure, to levy by resolution, tax on carriages and carts and the 'carriages' and 'carts' are defined in Section 2(5) and Sec.2(6) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, according to which a motor vehicle within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act would not fall within the purview of said definitions of 'carriages' and 'carts'. It was also pleaded that according to Section 81 of the Municipalities Act, 1965, before any tax is levied, the Municipal Council is required to publish a notice as specified therein inviting objections and no such notice had been given and no such objections had been invited. It was also pleaded that under Section 104 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965, the Council can levy tax only if carriages are kept or used within the municipal limits for an aggregate period of not less than 120 days, and if such aggregate period exceeds 30 days, but is less than 120 days only, a moiety of the yearly tax shall be leviable for the year and the said Section further stipulates that if the aggregate period does not exceed 30 days, no tax shall be payable, and the II Schedule to the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 contemplates maximum yearly tax of Rs. 30.00. Except in W.P.No. 9209/2002, in other Writ Petitions, it was also specifically pleaded that the impugned notification is not relatable to any of the provisions in Section 277 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and hence these Writ Petitions are filed seeking the reliefs referred to supra.

(3.) Rule Nisi had been issued in these Writ Petitions and interim orders also were granted and the 3rd respondent-Contractor filed an application to vacate the interim orders, and inasmuch as the other respondents also had filed counter affidavits with the consent of the counsel on record, all these Writ Petitions where common question had been raised, are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.