- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Arjun singh for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto and Mandamus or any other suitable writ or order against the respondents, asking them not to collect any tax from the applicant.
(2.) THE main, respondent in the case is the Municipal Board of Karanpur (hereinafter called the Board) through its Secretary, and the State has also been made a party along with the Chairman and members of the Board. The main relief claimed by the applicant is that the Board should be asked not to collect any tax from the petitioner. The grounds on which this relief is claimed may be narrated seriatim: (1) The term of office of the chairman and the members of the Board expired on the 27-9-1954, if not earlier, and as such, the chairman and the members cannot legally function, and were not authorised to collect taxes, or to appoint persons for that purpose, and the persons so appointed were not authorised to demand and collect taxes. (2) The Board did not follow the procedure prescribed under the rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (No. XXIII) of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ). and did not publish the proposed rules, bye-laws and rates, as required by Section 60, and never invited objections from the public as required by Section 61 of the Act. (3) The Board did not publish the rules, and rates as required by Section 62 of the Act after their sanction by the Government. (4) The rules, bye-laws and rates, and the copies of the Act have not been printed, published and made available to the public in Hindi as required by Section 47 of the Act. (5) No octroi limits and stations have been fixed, and no bye-laws framed for fixing them, or for other matters mentioned in Section 46 (1) (k) of the Act, and the procedure prescribed under Section 46 (2) has not been followed. (6) The taxes are heavy and unreasonable, and are an undue restraint on trade and commerce, and thus invalid under Article 301 of the constitution. (7) The, Board has no authority to charge export duty on the goods on which it is chargeable.
(3.) THE application has been opposed on behalf of the Board, and it has traversed all the points of law and fact raised on behalf of the applicant. We shall deal with these points now one by one.;