Wanchoo, J. - (1.) The only question raised in this appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court is the interpretation of R. 8 (a) of the Rules in force from May 1, 1949, in the municipal area of Saharanpur with respect to tolls payable on entry of goods within the limits of the Saharanpur municipality. We may add that the rules in question were changed from September 7, 1955; but we are not concerned with those rules as the present dispute refers to a period before September 7, 1955. The facts which are relevant in this connection lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, carries on the business of manufacturing sugar and cloth. It is situate outside the limits of the Saharanpur municipality. A large quantity of cloth is exported by the appellant to various places in India. Motor lorries loaded with bales of packed cloth leave the appellant's premises and carry these bales to the railway station where the bales are unloaded and booked by rail to various destinations without any sorting or change of bulk. The railway station of Saharanpur is situate within the municipal limits and, therefore, the lorries have to enter the municipal limits when they carry bales to the railway station. Further after the bales are unloaded at the railway station they remain within the municipal limits till they are taken away by rail to destinations for which they are booked.
(2.) Rule 2 of the Rules on Tolls as in 1949 with which we are concerned provided that"no person shall enter the toll limits of the Saharanpur Municipalities............with any headload, bahangi load, laden vehicle or any laden pack animal, on or in respect of which terminal toll is leviable, until the toll due has been paid to such persons and at such places as the Municipal Board may from time to time appoint". Rule 3 provided that "when a laden man, laden vehicle or laden pack animal subject to terminal toll arrives at one of the barriers fixed by the Board, the terminal toll due shall be paid at once by the person incharge of the head-load, bahangi load, laden vehicle or laden pack animal to the moharrir stationed at the barrier". Rule 8 (a) with which we are particularly concerned reads thus: "If the person in-charge of any motor lorry laden with taxable goods declares in writing to the moharrir at the import barrier that the goods he is importing into the limits of the Municipality are meant for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change of bulk, the moharrir shall issue a transit pass in Form 61 of the M. A. C. to such person incharge of the motor lorry, who shall present the same together with the motor lorry carrying the goods covered thereby to the moharrir at the barrier of export within half an hour from the time of issue of the transit pass."
(3.) Dispute arose between the appellant and the municipality on the question whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of R. 8 (a) which would exempt it from the payment of toll tax when it sent its goods to the railway station at Saharanpur for booking to various destinations by rail. It appers that there is a municipal barrier near the railway station and the appellant's lorries carrying goods first entered municipal limits at some place near the appellant's premises and then proceeded towards the railway station. Before reaching the station, the lorries had to pass out of the barrier near the station. This barrier apparently was meant to serve two purposes. It was an import barrier for goods coming into the municipality from the railway station and from that side. It was also an export barrier for goods going outside the municipality. But the barrier was not placed exactly where the municipal limits ended:it was at some distance inside the municipal limits so that the lorries of the appellant going out of the barrier and proceeding to the railway station were still within the municipal limits and the goods when unloaded at the railway station for booking were still within municipal limits. It is at some distance beyond the railway station that the municipal limits come to an end. It was not in dispute that the lorries of the appellant carrying the goods to the railway station never went out of the municipal limits and the goods were unloaded at the railway sttion and remained within the municipal limits. The municipality claims that it was entitled to charge the toll tax as the goods never left the municipal limits within half an hour of entry. The appellant on the other hand contended on an interpretation of R. 8 (a) that it was entitled to the transit pass as the railway station was beyond the municipal barrier on that side and the lorris passed that barrier and in the circumstances if the lorries passed that barrier within half an hour of their entry into the mumicipal limits, R. 8 (a) was complied with and the appellant was entitled to a transit pass which would then exempt it from toll tax. The Municipal Board did not accept this interpretation of R. 8 (a). The appellant, therefore, had to pay the toll tax and did so under protest. It, however, fileda writ petition in the High Court inter alia contending that its interpretation of R. 8 (a) was correct and it was entitled to get transit passes for its lorries. There were other grounds also on which R. 8 (a) was assailed, but we are not concerned in the present appeal with those grounds.;