TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 7th May, 2002, as the same is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law. 2. Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the act ), octroi can be levied by respondent No. 2-Corporation by framing Octroi Rules. Such rules were framed by respondent No. 2 Corporation. They were sanctioned by the Government on November 29, 2001. It is also an admitted fact that the Government granted the sanction in November, 2001 and they were gazetted on 6th January, 2002. They were brought into force from 6th January, 2002, i.e. on completion of one month from the date of publication in Gazette. It appears from the record as well as from a decision of a Division Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steps. 5. The Division Bench observed; 14. In our opinion, once the required procedure has been followed, the Rules were required to be brought into force. Once the sanction had been granted by the State Government, it had no power, authority or jurisdiction to suspend enforcement of the Rules or to grant any interim order. From the facts it is clear that at two stages the State directed the respondent-Corporation not to enforce new Rules and to collect octroi under the new Rules but continued to collect octroi under the old Rules only firstly during 6th January, 2002 to 14th February, 2002 and secondly, from 17th February, 2002 to 7th May, 2002. 15. So far as the first period is concerned, it was stated by the State that there we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d one month after which they were to bring into force was over, no power had been left with the State and no direction could be issued to the Corporation not to enforce the Rules. It is further stated in the affidavit that after the State Government was satisfied that the Octroi Rules were proper, legal and valid, vide a letter dated 7th May, 2002, the Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation was permitted to collect octroi under the new Rules. The fact, however, remains that from 17th February, 2002 to 7th May, 2002, octroi could not be collected under the new Rules and it was only with effect from 8th May, 2002 that octroi could be recovered under the new Rules. Thus, even fro that period, he action on the part of the State Government c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s i.e. to make a representation to the Chief Minister, the highest authority of the State by putting forward its grievances and objections. The Chief Minister also saw substance in the grievance voiced by respondent No. 4 and accordingly, enforcement was stayed. It is because of the fact that the prayer was granted by the State Government that the fourth respondent did not choose other remedies which were available to it. If this Court orders recovery of octroi under the new Rules now, for that period also, it may cause substantial loss to respondent No. 4 and several others. ..... 20. We may, however, observe that if respondent No. 4 is aggrieved by the new Rules, it is open to it to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to the affected parties to approach this Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 8. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, supported the action taken by the respondent-authorities and submitted that the action has been taken consequent to and implementing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which cannot be said to be illegal. It was also submitted that when sanction was granted, the Government has specifically stated that the Rules will come into force and will be implemented on completion of one month from the publication of the Rules in Official Gazette. 9. The Marathi sentence reads thus: Admittedly the rules were gazetted on 6th December, 2001, and hence on comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quential action was required to be taken. If the contention of the petitioners is that proper procedure was not followed or the action taken by the Corporation was otherwise illegal or contrary to law, and appropriate remedy would be to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Section 406 of the Act. Hence, in our opinion, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. 12. So far as the doctrine of justice, equity and good conscience is concerned, in our opinion, the same cannot be invoked in the instant case. In the judgment in PIL No. 31 of 2002, this court held that the action taken by the Municipal Corporation of framing Rules and forwarding them in accordance with law to the State Government was proper. The State Government sanctioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
