EKO ELECTRONICS PATIALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, fiftyZone concerns dealing in electronic goods of Patiala town seek the quashing of letter dated 27-6-1989 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Local Bodies, Punjab Government, directing all the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations and Executive Officers of the Municipal Committees and notified Area Committees in the State that the municipal staff is competent to inspect shops and buildings to ascertain whether any goods have been imported without payment of octroi as well as direction for restraining the respondents from entering into the business premises of the petitioners for the purpose of search and seizure of the goods, as there is no provision in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, in this regard.

(2.) In brief the facts are that the Department of Local Self Government to the State of Punjab issued letter, Annexure P-1 dated 27-6-1989 directing the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Amritsar as well as all the Executive Officers of the Municipal Committee and notified Area Committees in the State to check the evasion of octroi by the inspection of the shops and business premises located in the Municipal limits under Sections 76 and 77 of the Municipal Act. After quoting the ratio of the decision of the Maharashtra High Court in Parekh Brothers, Nagpur v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur, 1975 Mah LJ 86, it was clarified that the Municipal Authority can inspect shops and buildings to see whether any goods have been imported without payment of the octroi. The petitioners contend that on the basis of the said letter, the Municipal Committee had started harassing the petitioners for furnishing accounts of goods brought in their shops within the Municipal Committee. It was further averred that the Municipal staff along with personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force came to different areas of Patiala town on 14, 15 and 16-7-1989 and started raiding different shops in the town and that they have picked up goods like televisions, radios etc. without issuing any receipts from the shops of many petitioners although under the provisions of Section 77 of the Act, the Municipal staff has no power to search the premises or the shops of the petitioners located in the Municipal limits, as they can only check any person bringing or receiving the conveyance or package within the octroi or terminal limits of the municipality for detecting the evasion of payment of octroi. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have raised the following questions of decision:-

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 - Municipal Committee, it is averred that the petitioners had totally misstated the facts regarding the Municipal staff along with the Central Reserve Police Force having raided the business premises of different petitioners or having picked up goods from the shops. Thus it was averred that the petitioners had levelled false allegations in order to mislead the Court. On the other hand, it was maintained that after receiving the letter Exhibit P1 from the State Government, the answering respondent have issued notice like Annexure P-1 to all the dealers dealing in electrical goods informing that the goods brought into the Municipal limits without paying the octroi are tenable to octroi charges and calling upon them to show the receipts of the electrical goods for which the octroi had been paid and that if they failed to submit the octroi receipts regarding the payment of octroi in respect of certain articles then such articles can be seized from the shops or business premises by the inspecting staff. It was further explained that after receiving the notice, a deputation of the dealers met the Administrator, Municipal Committee on 1-7-1992 and requested for time to pay evaded octroi voluntarily. The Administrator gave them 15 days" notice/time up to 28-7-1992 and in pursuance of the said promise thirteen petitioners Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9 to 11, 13, 15, 19 to 21, 23 and 37 have deposited the evaded octroi. Thus the answering respondent contend that the writ petition on behalf of these petitioners have become infructuous. The answering respondent further averred that the petitioners generally do not pay octroi on V.C.P., V.C.R. and coloured televisions, which they store in their godowns outside the Municipal limits and bring the same into Municipal limits from their godowns stealthily in their own vehicles/ conveyance. In the alternative, it was maintained that under Section 77, sub-section (3) of the Act, the Municipal Committee has power to seize the articles regarding which the octroi has not been paid and for this purpose only this information was sought from the petitioners by giving the said notices.