3,990/ being the excess amount realised by the Municipality from the plain tiff.
Against this decision the plaintiff went up in appeal to the Extra Assistant Judge, Sangli who by his judgment dated August 27, 1970 reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration sought for as the Municipality.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd and 3rd day of August, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No.
was number entitled to realise two sets of fees under Appen dix 1 referred to above.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial companyrt of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, who held that the plaintiff was number entitled to the declaration sought for and neither to, the refund as the Municipality was fully justified in realising the two sets of fees from the plaintiff.
for an injunction restraining the Municipality from doing so.
3,990/ in favour of the plaintiff.
Thereafter the plaintiff obtained special leave from this Court and hence this appeal.
the appendix because they companyld number be said to be either wholesale dealers or manufacturers.
M. Tarkunde, S.B. Wad, Mrs. J. Wad and AMiss Manek Tarkunde for the Appellant.
The suit was resisted by the Municipality on the ground that under the rules framed by the Maharashtra Gov ernment, the Municipality was legally entitled to levy two sets of fees from the plaintiff as indicated above.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
V. Patel, S.C. Pratap and P.H. Parekh for Respondent No.
learned Judge also passed a decree for refund of Rs.
These fees were demanded by the Municipality on the ground that the members were both manufacturers and retail dealers and were, therefore, liable to pay fees in both these capacities.
The plaintiff is an association of hoteliers and restaurant keepers doing business within the, local limits of Sangli Municipality in the State of Maharashtra.
The Sangli Municipality went up in second appeal to the High Court of Bombay which ultimately succeed ed and the High Court, agreeing with the view taken by the Trial Court, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
Under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules framed thereunder by the Maharashtra Government the members of the plaintiff association were required to take a licence for the business companyducted by them.
1 M.N. Shroff for respondent No.
The Municipality insisted that the members of the plaintiff Association should pay two sets of fees one under item 1 and another under items 3 to 8 of Appendix 1 to the Schedule.
J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated August 2/3, 1971 by which the plaintiffs suit for declara tion and injunction has been dismissed.
1064 of 1970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALl.
The plaintiff also claimed a declaration that the Municipality had numberright to charge two fees from the plaintiff and also prayed.
of 1972.
There was a prayer for refund of Rs.
