Ram Lal Gulati, J. - (1.) The petitioners who are 47 in number are stage carriage permit -holders on the route known as Delhi -Saharanpur route. This route passes through the town of Rampur Maniharan in the district of Saharanpur. The Town Area Committee of Rampur Maniharan levies toll tax on the entry within its limits of vehicles and animals laden with goods as set out in Sch. A to a notification of February 15, 1966. The Schedule was amended by a notification issued by the State Government dated April 15, 1968, so that a toll tax of Re. 1/ - could be levied upon the vehicles carrying passengers. In pursuance of this notification, the Town Area Committee has imposed tax on the entry of the petitioners' vehicles into its limits. That imposition of tax has been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions. His first contention is that no toll tax can be levied on stage carriages in transit and only transit pass fee can be charged which is 25 paise per vehicle. In support of his contention he relies upon R. 10 of the Rules published in the notification of February 15, 1966. That rule reads: - - 10. No toll shall be charged on head load or bahangi load or laden pack animal or laden cart or hand cart or laden chaupahiya or laden horse -ekka or laden cycle or laden vehicle or any other laden conveyances which merely pass in transit through the limits of Town Area, Rampur Maniharan, staying 4 hours at the most within the limits of Town Area as specified in Transit Pass Rules according to which a transit pass fee only will be charged. This rule evidently applies to vehicles carrying goods and not to vehicles carrying passengers. This is clear from the language of the rule itself. The same view has been expressed by this Court in Mahabir Prasad Jain v/s. State of UP (1971 ALJ 421). The first contention, therefore, fails.
(2.) The second contention is that the imposition of the tax is invalid as the Prescribed authority which is the District Magistrate in this case had not accorded its approval to the proposal of the Town Area Committee. It appears that the Town Area Committee passed a resolution and got it published in a local Hindi newspaper. The proposal and a copy of the newspaper containing the publication were forwarded to the District Magistrate, who in his turn forwarded them to the State Government with a covering latter recommending the acceptance of the proposal. The State Government finally accepted the proposal. To me it appears that this is sufficient compliance of the provisions of S. 150(1). Although the Distt. Magistrate has not stated in so many words that he accepts the proposals, but his forwarding the papers to the State Government with a recommendation that the proposal be accepted does imply to his own acceptance.
(3.) The third contention is that the imposition of the tax has not been notified as required by S. 15 -B(3) of the UP Town Areas Act. It has not been disputed on behalf of the opposite parties that no notification as contemplated by S. 15 -B(3) was issued with regard to the amendment in Sch. A under which the toll tax on stage carriages was levied. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the publication of such a notification is directory and not mandatory and therefore the omission will not in any case invalidate the imposition of the tax. From the scheme of the Act it appears that there are various steps which must be taken by a Town Area Committee before it can impose a tax. U/S. 15 -A, the Town Area Committee has to frame a proposal for the imposition of tax specifying the rate of tax and the persons liable to pay the tax. Then it has to prepare a draft rules which a Town Area Committee desires the State Government to make in respect of the matters referred to in S. 39. The committee has then to publish the proposal and the draft rules in a prescribed manner so as to enable the inhabitants of the Town Area Committee to file objections. After the consideration of the objections, the proposals are settled and with the draft rules are submitted to the Prescribed Authority. U/S. 15 -B(1) the Prescribed Authority may reject the proposals or sanction them with or without modification. Where the proposals are sanctioned, the Prescribed Authority has to forward a copy of the draft rules to the State Government. After the rules have been framed by the State Government, a copy of such rules is to be forwarded to the Prescribed Authority and the Town Area Committee then has to pass a resolution directing the imposition of the tax with effect from specified date and has to forward a copy of the resolution to the Prescribed Authority who has to notify it in a gazette. Some of the steps are obviously directory but some of them are mandatory. The publication of the notification in the gazette by the Prescribed Authority as contemplated by sub -S. (3) of S. 15 -B to my mind appears to be the final act in the imposition of the tax and as such is mandatory. Sub -S. (4) of S. 15 -B provides that the notification u/sub -S. (3) shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This provision, to my mind, clearly implies that in the absence of such a notification, the imposition of tax cannot be said to have been finally made. The learned Standing Counsel referred to sub -S. (3) of S. 15 -B of the UP Municipalities Act which corresponds to sub -S. (3) of S. 15 -B of the UP Town Areas Act. He has then referred to sub -S. (2) of S. 135 which says that the imposition of a tax shall in all cases be subject to the condition that it has been so notified. His submission is that these words are missing from the corresponding provisions of the Town Areas Act and therefore the imposition of the tax cannot be made dependent on the notification in the official gazette. It is not possible to accept this contention. No doubt the words used in sub -S. (2) of S. 135 of the UP Municipalities Act are not to be found in the corresponding provision of the Town Areas Act, but to my mind, these words can be implied so that the imposition of a tax has to be subject to the conditions that it should be notified in the gazette as required by S. 15 -B(3) of the Town Areas Act. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of The Municipal Board, Hapur v/s. Raghuvendra Kripal ( : AIR 1966 SC 693). In para. 13 the Supreme Court has observed: - - The proceedings for the imposition of the tax however, must come to a conclusion at some stage after which it can be said that the tax has been imposed. That stage is reached, not when the special resolution of the Municipal Board is passed, but when the notification by Government is issued. To my mind this passage gives a clue to the purpose of the notification. The purpose is to give a finality to the imposition of tax and unless that step is taken, tax cannot be said to have been finally imposed.;