PABNA DISTRICT BOARD Vs. RANJIT CHANDRA LAHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 2, the District Board of Pabna, and arises out of a suit which was commenced by the plaintiff, who is a leading lawyer of Pabna, for refund of a sum of eight annas said to have been recovered from him as a bridge toll. The question is as to the legality of this imposition. The facts of the case are shortly as follows : In the year 1929 a bridge known as the Manoharpur Bridge was constructed by the District Board out of its own funds at a cost of Rs. 18,000 and it appears that the District Board thereupon obtained the sanction of the Local Government for the establishment of a toll-bar on this bridge and the levy of a toll on persons, vehicles and animals passing over the bridge under the provisions of Section 86A, Local Self-Government Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1885). That sanction was contained in letter dated 6 June 1929, which is Ex. E in the case. Recently, the Road Board which is a body set up by the Central Government undertook the construction of a new bridge on the same site. This bridge was ultimately meant to be, and was in fact, taken over by the District Board, but the cost was borne by the Road Board. Only some old materials from the old bridge which was admittedly dismantled for the purpose were used in its construction. During the progress of the work a diversion road was made through the river bed for the temporary passage of traffic.

(2.) The plaintiff's ease is that he was required to pay a toll of two annas on each of four occasions when he drove his car, three times over the diversion road and once over the bridge. He says this was an unauthorised levy, and has accordingly brought this suit for recovery of the amount which he was thus called upon to pay. The plaintiff also asked for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10 as special damage for the wrongful levy. There were two other defendants in the suit besides the District Board, namely defendants 1 and 3. Defendant 3 is a person to whom the District Board had leased the right of realising the tolls, and defendant 1 who actually collected the money was a servant of defendant 3.

(3.) The learned Munsif decreed the suit so far as the tolls realized in respect of the diversion road were concerned, but in regard to the toll paid for driving the car over the bridge itself, he held the levy was justified and rejected the claim. He also rejected the prayer for special damage. In the result, he made a decree for six annas only in the plaintiff's favour. Appeals were taken against this decision to the learned Subordinate Judge by both parties. So far as the decree for six annas was concerned, it was upheld and has become final, and we are not concerned with it in the present appeal. As for the claim for two annas which was dismissed, the Court however reversed the judgment of the learned Munsif, holding that the imposition was illegal and not covered by any valid sanction, and in that view he passed a decree for this amount. Hence the present appeal by the defendant District Board. The matter has been argued at length before us by Mr. Hamidul Huq on behalf of the Board, but we are not at all satisfied that he has made out a case in favour of his clients. The question depends on the effect of Section 86A, Local Self-Government Act. This section--to quote only the relevant portions--provides that: The District Board, with the sanction of the Local Government, may establish a toll- bar on any bridge in the district which has, after the date of the commencement of the Bengal Local Self-Government (Amendment) Act, 1908, been constructed or purchased out of the District Fund or to the cost of the construction or purchase of which contribution has, after the said date, been made out of the District Fund...and may levy tolls at such toll-bar on persons, vehicles and animals passing over such bridge.