From the Judgment and Order dated 21 9 76 of the Karna taka High Court in W.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Having taken up the companytract of transhipment of the iron ore from Hubli Railyard to Karwar and Belekeri harbours, the Mysore Minerals Limited has sublet the same to the West End Minerals and Exports Private Limited.
The facts of the case lie in a short companypass and may be stated as follows Iron ore which is extracted from its mine heads in Hospet Taluka is brought over and stocked in Hubli Railyard by the Mysore Minerals Limited which is a Government undertaking.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by certificate which is directed against the judgment and order dated September 21, 1976, of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore reversing the judgment and order dated March 3, 1976 of a Single Judge of that Court dismissing writ petition No.6945 of 1975 filed by the respondent involves a substantial question of law of general public importance relating to the validity of the levy of what is styled as supervision fee under section 124 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipalities Taxation Rules, 1965 herinafter referred to as the Rules .
1386 of 1976.
The latter has in turn entrusted the execution of the companytract to.
T. Desat, S.K. Mehta, K.R. Nagaraa and P.N. Puri for Respondent.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the respondent took the matter in appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court which allowed the appeal and issued the writ prayed for by the respondent by its judgment and order dated September 21, 1976.
Feeling that the fee realised by the appellant was invalid, the respondent filed a writ petition, being writ petition No 6945 of 1975 in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the levy of the fee and seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the appellant from realising the said fee.
B. Datar, Sanjeev Aggarwal and R.B. Datar for the Appel lant.
It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal is direct ed.
150 of 1976.
