"THE CLUB", MAHABALESHWAR Vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAHABLESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a private Club at Mahabaleshwar. The premises of the Club are situate within the municipal limits of the Mahabaleshwar Municipality. Under the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, the Mahabaleshwar Municipality has a right, subject to the sanction of the Commissioner, of levying taxes. Clause (xi) of Sub -section (1) of Section 59 provides that the municipality may levy

(2.) THE municipality of Mahabaleshwar, respondent No. 1 before us, contended that "The Club" at Mahabaleshwar was an hotel or that, in any event, it was a place where food, meals, refreshments, tea, coffee or other non -intoxicating drinks were provided on payment of money within the meaning of the aforesaid rule, and claimed to levy the tax on "The Club". "The Club" paid such tax for several years. For the years 1956 -57 and 1957 -58 "The Club" refused to pay such tax, contending that "The Club" was neither an hotel nor a place where food, meals, refreshments, tea, coffee or other non -intoxicating drinks were provided on payment of money as required under the aforesaid Rule 1. The municipality has sought to recover the said tax by coercive process available to the municipality under the Bombay District Municipal Act. "The Club" has thereupon filed the petition, which is now before us, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the municipality of Mahabaleshwar and its President and the successor in office of the President, their servants and agents from levying and/or collecting and/or recovering from the petitioners any tax called or like the "hotel tax". The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to refund to the petitioner the tax for the year 1955 -56 which, it was alleged, had been wrongly recovered by the respondents from the petitioner. The latter prayer, however, has not been pressed by the learned Government Pleader who appears for the petitioner.

(3.) IT is then urged that the expression "other persons" would equally cover them. Now, the words "other persons" are preceded by the words "strangers, travellers". If the expression "other persons" was intended to cover any and every person other than a stranger or a traveller, there would have been nothing simpler for those framing the rules than to say that an hotel would mean and include any place where any person is provided with meals and drinks for a price. If the expression "other persons" had such a wide meaning, the use of the words "strangers, travellers" preceding them would have been superfluous. In the context in which the expression "other persons" has been used, it cannot include members of a private Club or the guests of such members who are entitled to be served with food or drink under the rules provided for by the Club. That expression is intended to refer to the public or any section thereof which has access to the places referred to in the rule.