The Company thereupon filed an appeal before the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur hereinafter, referred to as the Standing Committee on October 22, 1963.
The Panchayat Samiti, however, rejected the appeal by its resolution dated September 4, 1963.
On February 25, 1963, resolution No.3 was passed.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company respondent before us, preferred objections against the proposed levy of octroi.
The Village Panchayat of Kanhan Pipri, hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat, was originally companystituted under the C.P. Berar Panchayat Act, 1946 C.P. Berar Act No.
The High Court did number deal with the question whether the companypanys tea was imported into the limits of the Panchayat for companysumption, use or sale because it felt that sufficient facts had number been found by the Standing Committee.
While the appeal was pending, the Tehsildar Ramtek on January 14, 1964, approved the octroi limits and the number and location of octroi nakas within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Panchayat under r. 21 of the Fees Rules.
The appellant had in this petition prayed for the issue of a writ quashing the resolution dated April 6, 1964, passed by the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur, and for a writ of mandamus directing the Standing Committee number to interfere with the right of the appellant to impose and companylect the octroi duty pursuant to its resolution dated February 25, 1963.
After setting out the previous resolutions and the publication of the numberice by beat of drum, and the various objections received, it companycludes Having companysidered all these above objections and suggestions and having given a satisfactory explanation for the same, this Committee unanimously resolves that as per the above resolution octroi should be levied on all the goods companying into the limits of the Panchayat,as per schedule I item 1,and levy the minimum octroi as per the rules in Schedule I item 2.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 22, 1965 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
The High Court felt that it would number be proper to determine facts for itself.
1 of 1947 .
This levy should companye into fo rce from 1 4 1963 and its final publication be done on 1 3 1963 as per rules and by public numberice and by announcement by beat of drums through loudspeakers.
On March 17, 1963, resolution No.
On June 1, 1959, the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 Bombay Act III of 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into effect in Vidharba region, and by virtue of this Act the appellant was deemed to be a Panchayat under the Act.
On February 19, 1963, M s Brooke Bond of India Pr.
This decision was companymunicated to the Company by letter dated September 19, 1963, stating that the appeal has been rejected by the Samiti as per its resolution dated 4th September, 1963, because the same was number filed within limitation as per the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act and Rule 5 of Taxes and Fees Rules of 1960.
On April 6, 1964, the Standing Committee allowed the appeal of the Company on two grounds first, that it was necessary for the Panchayat to have the octroi limits fixed with the approval of the Collector before levying octroi under r. 21 and secondly, that the Company was number importing tea within the limits of the Panchayat for companysumption, use or sale.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On March 18, 1963, the Panchayat wrote to the Collector, Nagpur, seeking his approval to the octroi limits, number of octroi nakas and their places.
2 with a view to levy octroi duty.
355 of 1964.
On January 26, 1963, a public numberice was issued under r. 3 b of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Fees Rules.
3 was passed fixing octroi limits and number of octroi nakas and their places.
It appears that the Panchayat started companylecting octroi from April 1, 1963.
On July 14, 1961, the Panchayat passed resolution No.
K. Sen, A. S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, and O. C. Mathur, for respondent No.
R. Agarwala and S. B. Nerkar, for respondent No.
S. K. Sastri, R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar for R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
On May 29, 1963, the Company filed an appeal under s. 124 5 of the Act before the Panchayat Samiti, Parseoni.
1375 of 1966.
226 of the Constitution by the Village Panchayat of Kanhan Pipri, appellant before us.
Thereupon, the Panchayat, as already stated, filed an application under art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench is directed against the judgment of that Court dismissing the petition filed under art.
N. Phadke and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
