R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) JETHU Ram petitioner is a brickkiln owner of village Bhutal Kalan, district Sangrur. He used to get the supply of slack coal through the Civil Supplies Department of the Punjab Government under a license for burning bricks issued to him. The price of the slack coal was fixed by the Government. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 passed an order in or about October, 1962 whereby they directed that the petitioner (as also the other brickkiln owners) should pay to the State in addition to the price of the coal a levy of Rs. 9.50 P. per ton on the existing stock of coal in his hands as also on the subsequent supplies of coal made to him for burning bricks. By letter, dated October 31, 1962 (Annexure 'A') the Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, wrote to all the District Officers of the Food and Supplies Department that they should ascertain and certify the existing stocks of slack coal with the brickkiln owners in their respective circles and effect recovery of the levy in dispute at the rate of Rs. 9.50 P. per ton for all such stocks. The District Officers were also directed to note that further allotment of coal should not be made to such brickkiln owners who fail to deposit the amount at Rs. 9.50 P. per ton by November 5, 1962. Another direction given in the circular letter was that the railway receipts in respect of future allocation of coal should be handed over to the brickkiln owners only after recovering in advance the amount calculated on the weight of the consignment in each case at the above said rate. It was made clear that the recovery in question was to be made on coal received by the brickkiln owners from all sources. The amount so recovered was to be credited into the State treasury under the head "Deposit and advances Part IV suspended suspense account compensation account". The object for which the recovery was made was disclosed in the letter in the following words: 'These recoveries will be used for compensating the brickkiln owners who import costlier coal from Kalakot Barauni/Tilrath. Paragraph 4 of the letter which allowed the petitioner and the other brickklin owners to raise the controlled rate of burnt bricks by Rs. 1.S8 nP. per thousand on account of this levy was in the following words: - As intimated in the telegram under reference, the existing ceiling rates of each category of bricks have been raised by Rs. 2.75 per 1000 with effect from 1st November, 1962. This increase comprises of 0.87 nP. on account of increase in the cost of coal and freight as also other incidental charges and Rs. 1.88 nP. on account of recovery at the rate of Rs. 9.50 nP. per tonne on stock coal for credit to the bricks price -equalization fund. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 3,589.85 nP. on account of the disputed levy on slack coal during the period November 1, 1962 to August 31, 1963. The impugned levy was, however, withdrawn with effect from September 1, 1963 and consequently rates of all kinds of bricks and tiles were also reduced by Rs. 1.88 nP. per thousand. By order, dated October 11, 1963 (Annexure 'B') the previous notifications fixing the rates of bricks were amended and fresh reduced rates of bricks were fixed which had to come into force with effect from October 16, 1963. The result of this modification was that the petitioner was compelled to sell the bricks burnt by him with slack coal obtained after paying the impugned levy of Rs. 9.50 nP. per tonne at reduced rates without enabling him to sell the existing stock of bricks at the higher rates. In as much as the petitioner has not disclosed as to whether the stock of bricks burnt by him before November 1, 1962 with slack coal obtained without the levy were sold by him by recovering the additional price of Rs. 1.88 nP. per thousand or not, it is not possible to decide as to whether equity in this respect lies on his side or not. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has gone to the root of the matter and has attacked the legality and validity of the levy itself. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, he has stated that the order imposing the levy on the supply of coal in excess of its fixed price was illegal, without authority and void, and that the petitioner is entitled to pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the refund of the amount illegally recovered. In reply to this averment all that is stated by the District Magistrate Sangrur, is that the amount in question was recovered under the order of the Director, Food and Supplies, Chandigarh, memorandum No. 1 -S -62/63538, dated the 31st of October, 1962. No copy of that communication has been produced. In paragraph 10 of the written statement of the Director, Food and Supplies, it is merely denied that the levy was illegal. This shows that the respondents have not been able to justify the imposition of the levy. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except on the authority of law. In as much as the impugned levy was a compulsory exaction by the State, it amounts to the imposition of a tax. As this levy has not been justified on the basis of any authority of law, I feel compelled to hold that the said levy was illegal. No such tax or fee could be levied under mere executive instructions of the Director, Food and Civil Supplies.
(2.) THIS writ petition is therefore, allowed, the order imposing the additional burden of Rs. 9.50nP. per ton on the slack coal in stock with the petitioner on November 1 1962, and on such coal subsequently supplied to the petitioner, is set aside, and respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the actual amount paid by the petitioner on that account. As nobody has appeared to defend the writ petition or to oppose it, there is no order as to costs.;