- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 9-1-87 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant M/s. J. K. Synthetics Limited challenged the notification dated 13-2-84 (Annx. 8) published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 15-3-84 issued under S.4(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1950, whereby, the Municipal Area of the Nimbahera Municipality was extended. The petitioner sought a declaration that the said notification is illegal and without authority of law and be quashed and octroi realised by the Municipal Board, Nimbahera be ordered to be refunded and the Municipal Board be restrained from realising any octroi duty from the petitioner company. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notification on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioner-company were not considered properly and were disposed of without application of mind in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no speaking order was passed by the State Government whether in its opinion the objections are insufficient or invalid, as required under sub-sec. (2) of S. 6 of the Act. The learned single Judge found no substance in this contention. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that even if the notification extending the Municipal Board is found to be valid, still over the extended area, the old notification imposing octroi duty would not be applicable. The notification dated 10-2-72 (Annx. 9) will have no application to the extended area and on the strength of that notification, the octroi is not leviable over the area included in the Municipality. The learned single Judge has wrongly applied sub-sec. (8) of S.4 of the Act. According to the petitioner-company, sub-sec. (7) of Section 4 would apply and, so the old notification is not applicable to the extended area and the octroi can only be imposed and levied by fresh notification to the area included in the Municipality. The learned single Judge, according to the appellant erred in holding that the area sought to be included is not local area but it is a part of the Panchayat Samiti.
(3.) We have heard Mr. L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant company and Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the Municipal Board and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Addl. Government Advocate.;