MALABAR DISTRICT BOARD, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR OF MALABAR Vs. UNITED MOTOR (COIMBATORE), LTDBY MANAGING AGENT GDORAISWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Board is the petitioner. The suit was for recovering two-thirds of the licence fee paid by the plaintiff-company in respect of a motor bus that was plying within the limits of the petitioner-District Board. The trial Court has decreed the suit and from that decision this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to set forth briefly the facts of the case. The plaintiff-company owning a number of motor buses plying in the Coimbatore District and also in the neighbouring District of Malabar used a motor bus on the roads of the, Malabar District in the 1 quarter of 1937 without obtaining a licence for such use from the District Board of Malabar. This was detected and the plaintiff was prosecuted under the Local Boards Act of 1930, then in force. When notice of the prosecution was served on the plaintiff-company, they started negotiations with the object of compounding the prosecution. In the course of the correspondence that passed between the parties, the District Board of Malabar informed the plaintiff-company that the prosecution would be withdrawn in case the full licence fee for the first quarter of 1937 together with Rs. 7-8-0 prescribed as the compounding-fee was paid by the plaintiff-company. The plaintiff-company then pointed out to the Malabar District Board that under the provisions of Section 166 (4) of the Local Boards Act, since the full licence fee was paid for the vehicle in question to the District Board of Coimbatore, it would be enough if one-third the licence fee was paid to the District Board of Malabar. The section provides for only this amount being levied when a licence to ply such a vehicle is granted in an adjacent District. To that letter there was no response from the District Board of Malabar. Thereupon, the plaintiff-company paid up the full licence fee of Rs. 195 together with Rs. 7-8-0 being the compounding-fee and applied to the District Board for refund of two-thirds of Rs. 195. The prosecution was compounded by the District Board, but the District Board refused to refund two-thirds of the licence fee. Thereafter the suit referred to above was filed for recovering that amount and it has been decreed as already stated.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the plaintiff-company was estopped from claiming refund of two-thirds the amount of the tax and that in any event, the payment haying been made voluntarily, Rule 7 of the rules framed under the Local Boards Act of 1920 would apply according to which an application for refund was not maintainable in the circumstances.