CHAIRMAN Vs. ABDUL KADIR HAJI SHAIK GULAB MUSALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is as appeal from the judgment of Pollock, J., before whom this matter came in second appeal. In our opinion the appeal must fail but as it raises some points which have some little interest and which may be worth consideration by Government we state what they are. The plaintiff is described as the Village Sanitation Panchayat. It is a panehayat brought into existence under the powers conferred by the Central Provinces Village Sanitation and Public Management Act, 1920. That Act unlike similar Acts creating similar bodies mentioned in the judgment of Pollock J. does not create this body a juristic person and not being a juristic person it cannot sue. That is the first difficulty which appears to call for attention.

(2.) THE second is this. We are told that it is almost the universal practice for Village Sanitation Panchayats to put up to public auction as a thing to be bought the right to collect the dues which the panchayats are authorised under the powers created by the Act and the rules made there under to collect from the inhabitants of the area over which they are given authority. The matter has not been exhaustively discussed before us and we merely leave it with this observation that so far as one can see such sales are wholly illegal and outside the powers created by the Act or the rules. Moreover such a practice seems to be contrary to the spirit of the Act and is generally objectionable. We say this because we observe that one of the sections of the Act, that is Section 7, provides what is to happen if taxes are not paid. That section empowers the Deputy Commissioner to collect arrears of taxes as arrears of land revenue. Obviously such a power does not easily live side by side with the sale of a right to collect taxes to a member of the public, for we cannot imagine that the Deputy Commissioner having recovered the arrears as land revenue has then to pay over the taxes in question to the gentleman who has bought at the public auction the right to collect taxes. These observations are merely made because we apprehend that Pollock, J. thought some point of public interest was involved. No legal difficulty emerges. It is apparent that the plaintiff cannot sue. It is equally apparent that the various contracts made are outside the powers conferred by the Act and Pollock J. was right on those lines which he followed. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.