BAIJ NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baij Nath petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the special order dated 7th November, 1973, issued by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Muktsar (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) by which it was proposed to enhance the surcharge on Octroi Schedule from 37-1/2 per cent to 75 per cent, and the notification dated 17th July, 1974 issued by the State Government (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Muktsar (Respondent No. 3) issued a Special Order on the 7th of November, 1973 in which it was proposed to levy surcharge on octroi Schedule at the rate of 75 per cent instead of 37-1/2 per cent already levied. It was notified for general information in the Special order that the proposed special order will be taken into consideration by the Administrator (Respondent No. 3) after a lapse of thirty days from the date of its publication and that any person affected thereby should file his objections in writing before the Administrator within the aforesaid period. It is further stated in para 5 of the writ petition that after the issuance of the Special order by the Administrator, the office of the Municipal Committee made a report to the Administrator that only one objection, i.e. from the Secretary, Market Committee has been received. It was also mentioned in that report that a notice for general information regarding the proposed increase in surcharge to be levied was sent for publication to various newspapers including "The Tribune", "Hind Samachar" and "Akali Patrika". That report was made on 19th December, 1973. The Executive Officer also agreed with the report made by the office and recommended that sanction of the Government might be obtained. (A correct translation of the said report is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition). The Administrator then moved the Government of Punjab through the Director, Local Bodies for the issuance of a notification in pursuance of the report made by him under sub-section (1) of section 62 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Government in their notification No. 12026-ICr-74/17467 dated 4th July, 1974, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Part 1-A dated 12th July, 1974, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 61 of the Act, levied the surcharge at the rate of 75 per cent on the rates of octroi leviable in respect of all items except item Nos. 1 and 31 to 35 of the Octroi (without refund) Schedule appended to the Punjab Government Notification dated 15th February, 1961 (copy Annexure P.3 to the writ petition). The Punjab Government issued another notification on 17th July, 1974, in which it was mentioned that the aforesaid notification dated 4th July, 1974 shall come into force from 20th August, 1974 (copy Annexure P-4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has challenged the Special order dated 7th November, 1973 and two notifications of the Punjab Government dated 4th July, 1974 and 17th July, 1974 on the ground that no notice for general information was ever published in any of the newspapers nor was it made known to the public by any effective means whatsoever that the Administrator had proposed to enhance the rate of surcharge on Octroi Schedule and that the mandatory provisions of section 62 of the Act were not complied with - as such the petitioner never came to know of the enhancement in rate of surcharge on Octroi Schedule and hence no objection could be preferred by him.

(3.) The second ground of attack is that before sending the report for approval of the Government, the Administrator and the Executive Officer should have personally verified the factum of publication of the notice in the various newspapers and as stated in the petition no notice for the information of general public regarding the enhancement of rate of surcharge on Octroi Schedule was ever published in any of the newspapers. The counsel for the petitioner thus maintains that this having not been done, the Administrator was not competent in law to recommend the case for enhancement of surcharge on Octroi Schedule to the Punjab Government and that the Punjab Government has not applied its mind before issuing the impugned notifications.