9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction on respondent to consider application for fixing lumpsum amount in lieu of taxes and octroi. 2. Challenge to the order of Civil Judge granting ad-interim relief. 3. Interpretation of Rule 4 of Gujarat Panchayat Rules regarding stay of tax collection. 4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 in challenging orders of Civil Court. Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought a direction on the respondents to consider their application for fixing a lumpsum amount in lieu of taxes and octroi. The petition was amended to challenge the order of the Civil Judge granting ad-interim relief. The Court noted that similar petitions were dismissed earlier as premature. The respondent-contractor had been given the contract to collect octroi, which was temporarily stayed by the District Development Officer. The petitioners contended that the suit filed without serving notice under the Gujarat Panchayats Act was not maintainable. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision on the requirement of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that premature suits must be dismissed. 2. The Court discussed the interpretation of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Rules regarding the stay of tax collection. The petitioners argued that upon applying for a lumpsum amount, authorities should stop octroi collection. However, the Court clarified that Rule 4 does not automatically stay tax collection when an agreement is not reached, and the matter is referred to the State Government. Section 201(3) empowers the State Government to direct the Panchayat on tax collection matters pending before it. The Court emphasized that Rule 4 cannot override the express provisions of Section 201(3) and that automatic stay of tax recovery is not contemplated when disputes are referred to the Development Commissioner. 3. The Court addressed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 in challenging Civil Court orders. It cited a Supreme Court decision stating that the High Court cannot interfere with orders passed by subordinate judges under Article 227 when the matter could be challenged through appeal. The Court concluded that the petitioners should approach the concerned Court with their grievances and not seek intervention from the High Court at this stage. Consequently, the petition was rejected, and interim relief was vacated.
|
