PANCHANAN PAL Vs. COMMRS OF CHAMPDANY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who is a medical practitioner carrying on his avocation within Champdani Municipality, brought the present suit for declaration that the imposition and recovery of professional tax for 1953-54 from him, is illegal and invalid and that on the basis of such imposition, no renewal licence may be granted by the Municipality and for compensation and damages.

(2.) Plaintiff's case briefly is, that he did not apply for taking out any licence for the year 1953-54 nor any licence was granted to him for carrying on with his profession as a medical practitioner for the said year; that a bill was served upon him in October, 1953 towards licence fee of Rs.10/- for the year 1953-54 (Rs.5/- for the first half of the said year); that this bill and a notice of demand in pursuance thereof are all illegal and invalid and they were not presented to him in accordance with law. According to plaintiff, the imposition of licence fee and the entire recovery proceeding for alleged professional tax for 1953-54 is in complete violation of the provisions of Bengal Municipal Act. According to plaintiff, a distress warrant was issued illegally and in execution of the said distress warrant, a Tax Collector of the Municipality, during his temporary absence from his dispensary, seized his cycle in parts and ultimately, sold the said parts on April 24,'55. Plaintiff has alleged, that as the Chairman of the said Municipality was on inimical terms with him, he caused the issue of the said demand notice towards alleged licence fee for the said year. Plaintiff has further alleged, that no notice of sale was ever served on him. The plaintiff has claimed compensation of Rs.100/- on account of his cycle and Re.1/- per day as expenses incurred by him for being deprived of the use of the cycle and has also claimed damages for slander and libel.

(3.) The municipality, in its defence, contended, inter alia, that the imposition of professional tax upon the plaintiff for the year in question being a renewal of the same from year to year, was legal and as the plaintiff did not pay the tax in arrears on demand and upon presentation of bills, the Municipality was obliged to issue a warrant of distress which again was not discharged by the plaintiff and accordingly, the Municipality with police help, had to execute the distress warrant by seizure of some old unserviceable cycle parts. It has been contended by the Municipality that it had no other alternative, but to seize the articles for sale and ultimately, after due proclamation of sale, the articles seized were sold and the Municipality realized its dues. The Municipality denied the allegation of Chairman's personal grudge or malice.