9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of its employees for supervision of the manufacure or sale of country liquor from the said factory. 4. A demand was raised for a sum of ₹ 7,43,686/-. Admittedly, such supervision charges have been paid in advance. The State, however, revised the salary of its employees with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 by Notification dated 10.12.1998 for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998. A communication dated 17.6.2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of supervision charges for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.12.2000 amounting to ₹ 7,43,666/- 5. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said claim, a writ petition (No.4092 of 2000) was filed before the Bombay High Court by the appellant praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs : (B) Hold and declare that the demand notice dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents 2, and the demand notice issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is therefore illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.7.1999 had not been challenged by the respondents herein and, therefore, they were not entitled to challenge the demand notice which was merely a consequential communication. The High Court, therefore, is not right in quashing the demand notice issued by appellant No. 4, namely, the Sub-Inspector of State Excise, in charge of the manufactory of the respondent, without examining the validity of or quashing the Rules of 1988 and the consequential circular letter dated 30.7.1999 issued by appellant No. 2, namely, the Commissioner, since the demand notice was merely a consequential communication issued in furtherance of the Rules of 1998 and the circular letter dated 30.7.1999. Pursuant to the said decision, the Commissioner of Excise issued a circular letter, operative portion of which reads as under : M/s. Polychem Ltd. Ors. v. Govt. of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had ruled in their decision on appeal No.3494/1991 that recovery of outstanding of supervision charges with retrospective effect is illegal. Considering the said decision the units who were provided supervision were informed vide above circular of this office that presently the difference of enhanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely. This is not proper. 9. Notwithstanding the said contention, several other demands were raised. It is in the aforementioned situation, appellant filed another writ petition marked as W.P.No.3050 of 2003, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs : (B) Hold and declare that, the said Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 dated 11.12.1998 namely sub-section (ii) of Rule (1) is not applicable to the Petitioners along with circular dated 17.6.1999 and 30.7.1999 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1) (G) of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same along with circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999, 17.6.2000 and 29.4.2003 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (C) Hold and declare that, the demand notices dated 20.5.2003, 10.6.2003 and 26.6.2003 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and therefore same are liable to be quashed and set aside and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (D) Hold and declare that the said demand notices are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier writ petition was filed was different from that of the writ petition filed later. Indisputably, the claim of the respondent was based on the notification implementing recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the pay of the concerned employees had been revised with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996. Admittedly, the matter relating to payment of supervision charges is governed by the provisions of Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Rules framed by the State known as Country Liquor Rules. According to the appellants, the supervisory staff had been employed under sub-rule (12) of Rule 6; the supervisory charges were required to be paid to the State Government quarterly in advance. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule (2) of the Liquor Rules, 1976, the superivision charges are to be paid annually in advance. It is also not in dispute, although not very relevant for our purpose, that the appellant is entitled to recover the supervision charges or other charges from its customers by including such sum in the price of the liquor. 14. Appellant in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2000, indisputably questioned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment. 24. It was further noticed: In Ishwardas v. the State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [AIR 1979 SC 551], this Court held: ...In order to sustain the plea of res judicata it is not necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim... 16. Yet again in Swamy Atmananda Ors. V. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam Ors. [(2005) 10 SCC 51], this Court held : The object and purport of the principle of res judicata as contended in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. Once the matter which was the subject- matter of lis stood determined by a competent court, no party thereafter can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into the statute-book with a view to bring the litigation to an en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
