SATYANARAYAN FIDODA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. Both these writ petition, involving similar controversy, are being decided by this common order and the facts of the CW No. 11628/2013 -Satyanarayan Fidoda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., are taken illustratively.

(2.) THE petitioners were awarded contract for collection vehicles tax imposed by the respondent - Gram Panchayat, Randhisar, Panchayat Samiti -Sujangarh, District: Churu, for the year 2012 -13. The said period of contract was extended in the case of the petitioners by the order of the Gram Sevak -cum -Secretary vide order Annex. 7 dt. 30.03.2012 (01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013). Further increasing the tender amount by 10%, the period of contract was renewed for the next year i.e. 2013 -14 i.e. up to 31.03.2014 vide order dt. 12.02.2013 (Annex. P/8). However, by the impugned communication (Annex. P/14) dt. 27.08.2013, the respondent - Gram Panchayat, Randhisar, has informed the petitioner to immediately stop the collection of the said vehicles tax in pursuance of decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench in SBCWP No. 8221/2012 - Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 13.02.2013 by which a coordinate bench of this Court, struck down the said levy of vehicles tax by the respondent - Gram Panchayat as beyond the scope of Section 65 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the record, this Court is satisfied and is of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed in compliance of directions of this Court in the judgment in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), dt. 13.02.2013, the impugned order dt. 27.08.2013 cannot be assailed validly. A coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), has held as under: - -