MADANLAL HIRALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, who are the ratepayers of the Municipal Council, Rajnandgaon, question the legality of an order passed by the Collector, Durg, on 20th February 1985 under section 323 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) suspending the execution of an order passed by the President, Municipal Council, Rajnandgaon, on 12th January 1985 that with effect from 15th January 1965 refund of octroi duty matters shall be dealt with at the Town Hall upto 5 p.m. daily. They pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order of the Collector.

(2.) THE material facts are that under rule 19 of the Rules framed by the Municipal Council for collection and refund of octroi duty, applications for refund of octroi duty have to be made to the Central Octroi Office of the Municipal Council and they must be accompanied by receipts of payment of octroi duty in respect of the goods desired to be imported or exported. As stated by the petitioners and also by the Collector in the impugned order, the Central Octroi Office is located near the railway station and quite close to the municipal godown According to the applicants, the location of the Central Octroi Office near the railway station and at a considerable distance fron the main municipal office in the Town Hall was causing considerable inconvenience to the general body of traders and was also resulting in fraudulent refund of octroi duty by the subordinate staff of the Municipal Council; that in order to remove this inconvenience and stop evasion of payment of octroi duty by claims of refund, the President made an order on 12th January 1965 that with effect from 15th January 1965: (Proceedings for refund of octroi will be held at the Town Hail upto 5 p. m.). This order of the President was ratified by the Council on 19th February 1965.

(3.) HERE, it cannot be said of the order passed by the President on 12th January 1965 that it is contrary to the Act or any law or to the statutory rules or bye-laws. It dots not in any way purport to amend or affect rule 19 of the Rules made by the Municipal Council for the collection and refund of octroi duty. That rule only says that applications for refund shall be made to the Central Octroi Office of the Municipality. It does not fix the location of the Central Octroi Office. Uuder that rule applications are to be made to the Central Octroi Office and not to any Central Octroi Post. The order of the President is no doubt not very precisely worded. But its effect is to shift the Central Octroi Office from its present location to the Town Hall. Thus, by the President's order only the place of location of the Central Octroi Office has been changed and not the authority or the office where applications for refund should be made. The order of the President has to be read consistent with rule 19, and, so read, it can only mean that what has been done by the order is to shift the Central Octroi Office from its present place to the Town Hall. The Collector has nowhere found in the inpugned order that even after the passing of the order by the President on 12th January 1965 the Central Octroi Office remains where it is but that under that order another office or authority has been nominated for dealing with refund matters. As we read the Collector's order, we find that according to him the change in the location of the Central Octroi Office from the railway station to the Town Hall amounts to a change ia rule 19. This is not correct. Section 51 (1) (b) of the Act give3 to the President of the Council supervisory power over the executive administration of the Council. In the exercise of this power, the President has clearly the power to decide which office shall be located where. In making the order dated 12th January 1965 the President thus acted within the limits of his powers and in conformity with the provisions of the Act and rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules.