Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its registered office is situate at Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Bombay, and one of the branch offices is situate at Lever House, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi. The petitioner has factories at various places in India, including one at the Grand Trunk Road, Ghaziabrd, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner manufactures Vanaspati in the factory and commodities like vegetable oils are supplied to the factory. Some consignments of soaps manufactured by M/s Lever Brothers (India) Limited, the associate of the petitioner, are also received at this factory for storage. The goods are brought into the factory by railway wagons over an Assisted Railway Siding which branches off the main railway line and then passing through the factory boundary ends inside the premises of the factory. The factory is situate within the limits of the Ghaziabad Municipality. Subsequent to the agreement between the Government of India and the Vanaspati Industries Limited, Ghaziabad, the Assisted Railway Siding was construed and the factory was acquired by the petitioner from the said Vanaspati Industries Limited. A fresh agreement was then required by the Government of India to be entered into regarding this railway siding. On the 10th of September 1953 a fresh agreement was entered into between the President of India acting through the Northern Railway Administration and Messrs. Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Company Limited, Ghaziabad. The land for the siding was acquired by the Railway Administration and vests in it. The construction, maintenance and operation of the whole of the siding and all works in connection therewith were, and are carried out by the Railway Administration, whether done inside or outside the factory limits. The Commissioner of the Meerut Division made certain rules under the U. P. Municipalities Act for the Ghaziabad Municipality and they were published by the Notification dated the 22nd of June 1922, and these rules were amended from time to time. In the year 1952, Rule 1, read as follows:- "No person shall bring within the limits of the Ghaziabad Municipality any laden vehicle or laden animal in respect of which a toll is leviable until the toll due in respect thereof has been paid to such persons, and at such barriers, as the Board may from time to time appoint." Rule 10 of the Rules provides as follows:- "10 (a). If the toll has not been paid according to Rule 1 it may be realised from the owner of the vehicles or animal and from the owner of goods it is laden with. (b) When it is proposed to proceed under the rule the Executive Officer shall serve a written notice of the demand on all or any of the persons mentioned in Sub-clause (a) calling upon him or them jointly to pay the amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice. (c) The person so served with notice under Sub-clause (b) above shall, unless he is able to produce satisfactory evidence that he is not liable under these rules to prove that he was not the owner of the vehicles, animals or goods, as the case may be, pay the amount of demand by such notice within the period specified above." The penalty was then provided under another rules framed under Section 299(1) of the Act. In April 1952 a notice was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ghaziabad, to the petitioner informing it that it had not paid any toll in respect of goods received by the factory from outside. The petitioner wrote back on the 23rd of April 1952 that the petitioner was not liable to pay toll on goods despatched to the factory from outside the limits of Ghaziabad Municipality and delivered by the railway at the factory siding and it was pointed out that Rule 1 did not refer to the entry of laden railway wagons and that the Municipal Board was not competent to make rules relating to the movement of goods by rail. Subsequently a notification was issued on the 3rd of July 1954 amending Rule 1 and by the amendment other laden conveyances were also included within its ambit. Explanation to Rule 1 added by the amendment specifically provided that other laden convenyances included laden railway wagons. Corresponding amendments were made in Rule 10 and in the penalty clause. A letter was then issued dated the 17th of July 1954 to the petitioner informing it that under the amended rules the goods entering through the Railway Siding in the factory premises were liable to payment of toll with effect from the 20th of July 1954. The petitioner wrote back to the Municipal Board that the amendments were ultra vires so far as they related to railway wagons. In December 1954 a criminal complaint was filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was importing various commodities into the premises of the factory by railway wagons and was liable to pay toll and it was guilty of the contravention of Rule 10 of the Rules. A written reply was filed. Another complaint was filed in February 1955 against the petitioner for the same offence. Being harassed by these criminal proceedings a civil suit was instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, Meerut, on the 11th of March 1955, for a declaration that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not entitled to levy a toll on the laden conveyances including laden railway wagons. That suit is still pending and written statements were filed. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner applied for an interim injunction which was granted. An appeal was preferred against that grant of interim injunction and was allowed on the 9th of July 1955 by the District Judge, Meerut. After the grant of the interim injunction the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad, ordered the record of the two criminal cases to be consigned pending the decision of the civil suit. On the 13th of September 1955 the opposite party No. 2 filed a third complaint against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had violated Rule 1, and the petitioner thereupon filed this petition on the 8th of November 1955 for the following reliefs: - (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to levy tell upon, or to realise it from, the petitioner in respect of the entry of laden railway wagons on the Assisted Railway Siding into the premises of the petitioner's factory. (b) A Writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent No. 3 from proceeding further with the Criminal cases instituted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioner and pending before him. (c) A writ in the nature, of certiorari quashing the proceedings already taken in the aforesaid criminal cases by the respondent No. 3. (d) Such other writ order or direction may be issued by this Court as it may deem just and proper.
(2.) Petition No. 1093 of 1956 which has been connected with this petition has been filed under Article 228 of the Constitution praying that the criminal cases instituted on the 27th of December 1954 the 1st February 1955 and the 13th of September 1955 and pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad. be withdrawn from that court and be decided by this Court as certain questions of law set out in the above application arise in the case for decision.
(3.) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as the Municipal Board does not maintain or contribute to the maintenance of or render any service in respect of the Assisted Railway Siding in fact or under law it is hot entitled to lew toll in respect of the entry of railway wagons on this railway siding, the lew of toll contravenes Articles 31 and 265 of the Constitution. Shortly put, the argument of the petitioner is that the word 'toll' had acquired a particular meaning under the common law and the Constitution when it used that word construed the meaning of the word 'toll' in the same sense in which it was accented by the common law. The toll necessarily implies a corresponding duty or service rendered by a public body. In the absence of any rendering of service by the public body it cannot levy any toll and any levy made by the public body without providing for facilities or without rendering service is ultra vires. A very large ground was covered by the counsel for the parties in the argument in this case; but it is not necessary for the purposes of disposing of this case to go into all the grounds.;