SHAIK SHERIFF Vs. MAHADO SEETHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Writ Petitions and the civil revision petition raise common questions of law. They can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. Since the facts of W. P. No. 163/65, if state, would cover all the points raised, I will briefly narrate the facts of that Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a businessman doing business at Adilabad in groundnut oil and other commodities. The respondent, City Municipality, Adilabad, issued a letter No. 40, dated 31-7-1963 informing the petitioner that octroi is leviable on the articles, list of which was appended to it. Of 52 items groundnut oil is one such item. The petitioner thereupon took objection that no octroi can be levied on groundnut oil. But the Municipality maintained that octroi was legally leviable and started levying it from 1-5-1963.

(3.) The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the District Judge, Adilabad. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and held that groundnut oil and some other articles mentioned in the judgment are not subject to levy of octroi. He, however, held other articles to be chargeable in his judgment dated 7-10-1963. It is this judgment which is sought to be quashed in W. P. Nos. and 40/64 by the City Municipality, Adilabad W. P. Nos. 163/65 and C. R. P. No. 1661 of 1963 dispute the very levy of octroi as that was held against the petitioners by the learned District Judge.