- (1.) THIS is a petition by one Veerchand challenging the validity of some taxes which are being collected on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti, Ahore. The petition has been contested on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, the Panchayat Samiti Ahore, Collector Jalore and Tehsildar, Ahore. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. I am satisfied that the imposition of the taxes is illegal.
(2.) POWER to impose taxes is conferred on the Panchayat Samiti under sec. 33 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959. The procedure for imposition of the taxes is prescribed in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis Taxation Rules, 1960. Rule 3 lay down that whenever any tax under sec. 3 is intended to be imposed a Panchayat Samiti shall pass a resolution to that effect. Rule 4 prescribes that the Panchayat Samiti shall issue a notice of the said resolution for general information inviting objections to the imposition of such a tax or taxes. Rule 5 provides that the period of not less than one month form the date of such notice shall be allowed for filing objections. Rule 6 runs as follows: " After expiry of the period of notice, the Panchayat Samiti shall consider all the objections filed by any person or persons and shall hereafter if it is decided that the tax, or taxes be so levied the Panchayat Samiti shall again pass a resolution for levying of the said tax or taxes, and, shall intimate it to the Tehsildar concerned, Collector of the District concerned, Zila Parishad and the Joint Development Commissioner. " On 21st September, 1960 the Standing Committee for Finance, Taxation and Administration of the Panchayat Samiti prepared the draft of a resolution as envisaged under Rule 3 and submitted it to the Panchayat Samiti for the acceptance (annexure 2 ). On 5th October, 1960 a meeting of the Panchayat was held and the following proceedings appear in item No. 4 (annexure 2): ******* A notice was then issued (annexure 3) inviting objections against the taxes. In the left-hand bottom corner of this notice the date 17. 12. 60 was appended under the signature of Kayamsingh Chauhan. The signature of the Vikas Adhi-kari was appended on the right-hand bottom corner. The notices were sent for publication under an endorsement dated 27th December, 1960 signed by the Vikas Adhikakri. On 4th April, 1962 a meeting of the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti was held and it's proceedings were recorded as follows (annexure 4 ). ******* A meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was held on 5th April, 1962. Annexure 6 is a copy of the proceedings of this meeting. The proceedings are described in the following words: ******* The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the taxes which are being recovered are invalid because the Panchayat Samiti did not consider the objections filed against them under rule 4 and no resolution was passed by the Panchayat Samiti finally imposing these taxes as required by rule 6. It is pointed out that the objections were considered only by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti and the taxes were imposed by it which it had no power to do. On behalf of the respondents it is not disputed that the above resolutions are the only resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samiti for the purpose of imposing the impugned taxes. The Vikas Adhikari has, however, made the following allegations on affidavit in para 5 of his reply: " The Panchayat Samiti however did apply its mind to various taxes which were imposed on and objected to and after applying its mind it passed the resolution Ex. 10. It may be stated here that Panchayat Samiti did consider the resolution of the standing committee as well as the objections filed against the imposition of the taxes as per list appended and after considering the same, they passed the resolution, and it was not necessary for them to give a personal hearing to all the objectors in the matter. " Resolutions of the Standing Committee annexure A2 dated 24th August, 1960 and annexure A3 dated 4th September, 1961 were filed in addition to the resolution of the Standing Committee filed on behalf of the petitioner. I have carefully considered the resolutions and the allegation made by the Vikas Adhikari in his reply on affidavit. None of the resolutions of the Standing Committee mentions what objections were raised before it. A mere reading of these resolutions before the Panchayat Samiti could not have given any idea as to what objections were raised against the impositions of the proposed taxes. The resolution of the Panchayat Samiti does not state that objections filed against the imposition of taxes were considered by it and I am unable to believe the allegation of the Vikas Adhikari to the contrary. It cannot therefore be said that the Panchayat Samiti considered the objections as required under rule 6. Further, in its resolution dated 5th April, 1962 (annexure 6) the Panchayat Samiti did not say that it was imposing any taxes. It merely stated that it had heard the proceedings of the meetings of various Standing Committees which were read over to it by the Vikas Adhikari and accepted them unanimously. The proceedings of Committee for Finance, Taxation and Administration dated 4th April, 1962 (annexure 4) did not seek the approval of the Panchayat Samiti to the imposition of the taxes. It stated that it had itself imposed the taxes after hearing the objections. It is clear from the proceedings of the Standing Committee as well as the Panchayat Samiti that the latter was not conscious of the fact that it was imposing the taxes. It was told that the Standing Committee had decided to impose the taxes and had raised objection against it. This does not amount to imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti as envisaged under rule 6. It was also faintly contended on behalf of the respondents that the power to impose taxes under sec. 33 was delegated by the Panchayat Samiti to the Standing Committee for Fainance Taxation and Administration under a resolution dated 5th July, 1960 (annexure 46) in exercise of its powers under sec. 32 (9 ). This resolution runs as follows: ******* The power which was delegated by the above resolution was only to draft resolution for imposition of taxes under sec. 33 and to perform such other functions which may be necessary. The latter clause has to be read ejusdem generis with what precedes it and duties which were delegated under the above resolution can only be of the same kind or nature as drafting resolutions for imposition of taxes. More important functions than drafting resolutions cannot be said to have been delegated under the above resolution. I therefore find that the Standing Committee had no power either to consider the objections or to impose taxes under rule 6 on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti. 12. I accordingly hold that the taxes which have been challenged in this writ petition were not validly imposed by the Panchayat Samiti. 13. In view of my finding above it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other objections raised on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition. 14. The result is that the writ petition is allowed and all proceedings for the recovery of the impugned taxes from the petitioner are quashed. Further the respondents are restrained from recovering any of the impugned taxes from the petitioner in future. 15. In the circumstances of the case I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. . ;