THE SOHNA STONE CRUSHING PRODUCTION INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question as to the validity of the notification of the erstwhile Punjab Government issued on 27th January, 1966. under Sub -section (3) of Section 5 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911) (hereinafter called the Act), whereby the municipal limits of Sohna in Gurgaon District were extended so as to include certain new areas within its limits making the residents thereof liable for payment of octroi duty in respect of articles on which such duty was leviable.

(2.) THERE are five Petitioners who have made a joint petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the aforesaid notification. The Petitioners allege that they deal in business of stone -crushing and that their place of business, till the impugned notification was issued, was outside the municipal limits of Sohna. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the notification was issued without inviting objections as envisaged in Section 5(2) of the Act, and giving opportunity to the Petitioners and others who were likely to be affected by the notification to raise objections. It is also the case of the Petitioners that no procedure has been adopted for extending the octroi limits of the Municipal Committee as required by Sections 51 and 62 of the Act. In other words, even if the extension of municipal limits is held to be valid, the procedure for imposing the tax in the form of octroi duty should have been followed. The Petitioners had been served notices of demand to pay octroi duty but they did not do so and came to this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) THE Petitioners have been challenging the rates of octroi and surcharge but the State Government ultimately accepted their representations and reduced the rates. There is no controversy about the rates before me. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, against the inclusion of their place of business within the municipal limits and also against the octroi duty and the surcharge demanded from them. This appeal was dismissed on 7th February, 1968, and a copy of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner has been placed on the record by the Respondents as Annexure 'R -7'. The Petitioners made a quiet and passing reference to the fact of having filed an appeal and its being dismissed but did not choose to file a copy of the order which went against them. They have also, beyond any doubt, falsely stated in the writ petition that no objections under Section 5(2) were invited before the final impugned notification was issued.