Skip to content


Sri Ram Vs. the Notified Area Committee, - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1952SC118
ActsUttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 294
AppellantSri Ram
RespondentThe Notified Area Committee,;khatauli and anr.
DispositionApplication allowed
Cases ReferredMohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee Jalalabad
Excerpt:
- .....this petition is founded are similar to these in petition no. 132 of 1951 mohammad yasin v. town area committee, jalalabad, : [1952]1scr572 except that the respondent committee in this petition which was a town area committee governed by the u. p. town area act (ii [2] of 1914), was converted into a notified area committee with effect from 1-7- 1949. the principal questions raised in this petition are covered by our decision in the other petition i have mentioned and it is not necessary to reiterate the same. it is, therefore, necessary only to consider one additional point urged on this petition.2. after the respondent committee became a notifide area committee the commissioner, meerut division, by a notification extended to the respondent committee the provisions of sections 333 and.....
Judgment:

A.R. Das, J.

1. The facts on which this petition is founded are similar to these in petition No. 132 of 1951 Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad, : [1952]1SCR572 except that the respondent Committee in this petition which was a Town Area Committee governed by the U. P. Town Area Act (II [2] of 1914), was converted into a Notified Area Committee with effect from 1-7- 1949. The principal questions raised in this petition are covered by our decision in the other petition I have mentioned and it is not necessary to reiterate the same. It is, therefore, necessary only to consider one additional point urged on this petition.

2. After the respondent Committee became a Notifide Area Committee the Commissioner, Meerut Division, by a notification extended to the respondent Committee the provisions of Sections 333 and 333A, D. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (II [2] of 1916). Under the last mentioned section all taxes, fees, licenses, fines or penalties imposed, prescribed or levied by the Town Area Committee are to be deemed to have been imposed prescribed or levied by the Board under or in accordance with the provisions of the U P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accordingly has sought to support the byelaw imposing a fee of one anna to be shared equally by the purchaser and the seller as a fee charged under Section 294, U. P. Municipalities Act. That section author see the Board to charge a fee to be fixed by bye law for any license, sanction or permission which it is entitled or required to grant by or under this Act.'

Some argument was addressed to us on the question whether that section contemplates a fixed lump sum fee or a fee calculated ad valorem on the quantity of goods purchased and sold. We do not consider it necessary to express an opinion on that question, for we think, this case can be disposed of on the simple ground that a fee of one anna per rupee to be shared equally by the buyer and the seller cannot possibly be regarded as fee contemplated by Section 294. We have not been referred to any provision of the U. P Municipalities Act, 1-16 by or under which the Board is entitled or required to grant any license sanction or permission to a person for buying fruit or vegetable within the limits of the notified area. In the promises, the revised bye-law 8 (c) cannot be supported under Section 294.

3. For reasons stated in our judgment in petition No. 132 of 1951 Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee Jalalabad, : [1952]1SCR572 , and for the reasons stated above, this application much also be allowed and there will be an order in the same form as in that petition. The respondents in this petition must pay the costs of the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //