MATHURA DASS SETIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the State of Punjab in abolishing 'Octroi' illegal and arbitrary? Do Act Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 as promulgated by the legislature conform to the mandate of Art. 14 and Part IX-A of the Constitution? This is the core of the controversy in these petitions.

(2.) The Municipal Councilors, past and present; the contractors and the employees appointed to collect 'Octroi', are the petitioners. They complain that the action of the State of Punjab in abolishing 'Octroi' without providing for any alternative source of revenue is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Part IX-A of the Constitution requires the State to strengthen the Municipalities as instruments of local Government. The impugned Acts violate this mandate. Thus, these should be annulled.

(3.) The relevant facts may be noticed. The elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held in the year 1997. At that time, the Akali-BJP alliance had made a promise to abolish 'Octroi'. It was a part of its election manifesto. The petitioners allege that the purpose was "to woo the trading community". However, 'Octroi' was a major source of revenue. Thus, the promise was not kept.