LAWS(JHAR)-2001-10-3

STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. MUKESH PRASAD

Decided On October 04, 2001
STATE OF JHARKHAND Appellant
V/S
MUKESH PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26/07/2001 whereby the writ application filed by Respondent No.1 writ petitioner against Ramgarh Cantonment Board (Respondent No.2) and others including the State of Jharkhand and Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Appellant Nos. 1 and 2) was allowed and the impugned restrictions put by the appellant No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, were quashed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that Ramgarh Cantonment Board, a Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924, in purported exercise of the power allegedly vested in it under S. 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, invited tenders for collection of Vehicles Tax from the vehicles entering into Ramgarh Cantonment area. In response, many persons including writ-petitioner submitted their tenders and deposited earnest money of Rs.25,000.00. The writ petitioner being the highest bidder was accordingly, awarded the contract and asked to realise the Vehicles Tax @ Rs.10.00 from each goods vehicle entering Ramgarh cantonment area for a period of six months starting from 12/03/2001. Even while this contract was in vogue the Cantonment Board appears to have issued an office order immediately thereafter restraining the writ-petitioner from collecting the aforesaid tax from any vehicle because of some objections raised by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The contention of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, was that the Cantonment Board was not authorised to levy any tax on the entry of vehicles in the Ramgarh Cantonment area.

(3.) The contention of the Ramgarh Cantonment Board and the writ-petitioner-contractor before the learned single Judge was that in terms of S. 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the Cantonment Board is empowered to impose the aforesaid tax within the Cantonment area and that the procedure prescribed in S. 61 and 62 of the Act having been followed, the Board was within its jurisdiction to levy the tax.