DAVE C. J.—This is a writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It has been filed by Narainlal Maheshwari, resident of Naraina, in order to challenge the validity of Byalaw No. 14 framed by the erstwhile Municipal Board, Naraina, under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, which will hereinafter be referred as the Act. 2. The petitioner is a resident of the town of Naraina, tehsil Phulera, and carries on business of a commission agent in partnership in the name and style of Messrs. Ramlal Mangilal. His case is that till the 10th of October, 1959 there was a Municipal Board at Naraina and that under sec. 59 (b)(iv) of the Act, it was authorised to impose an octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption or use therein. In order to lay down the procedure for imposition and collection of the said tax, the Board framed bye-law No. 14 which was in the following words:— "Bye-law No. 14— ^^tks lkeku ikfydk {ks= esa mi;ksx ds fy;s ugha gksxk vFkok fcØh ds fy;s ugha gksxk rFkk mijksDr /kkjk 13 ds vuqlkj ikfydk {ks= ls ckgj pyk tkosxk ml ij dj ugha fy;k tkosxk fdUrq ,slk eky pkSchl ?kUVksa ls vf/kd le; rd ikfydk {ks= esa fLFkr xksnkeksa vFkok nqdkuksa esa j[kk tkosxk tks mldk dj nsuk vko;d gksxk rFkk ,slk lkeku fcuk dj fn;s ys tkuk voS/kkfud gksxkA** The petitioner proceeds on to say that the Municipal Board of Naraina was converted into panchayat on the 11th of October, 1959 under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act No.37 of 1959, hereinafter to be referred as the Zila Parishads Act, soon after it came into force on the 9th September, 1959. Sec. 4 of the Zila Parishads Act made certain amendments in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act No. 21 of 1953. This section was further amended by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads ( Amendment ) Act No. 11 of 1961. In view of these changes, the Gram Panchayat, Naraina, started collecting octroi tax under the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Naraina, referred above, 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the panchayat was authorised even under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, to impose an octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the panchayat circle for consumption or use therein under sec. It is contended by the petitioner that the panchayat was authorised even under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, to impose an octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the panchayat circle for consumption or use therein under sec. 64 of the that Act, but it had no authority to impose an octroi tax on animals or goods or both which, though brought within the panchayat circle, were not meant for consumption or use therein. It is stated by the petitioner that, according to bye-law No. 14, referred above, the Gram Panchayat was collecting octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the panchayat circle on the mere ground that such goods and animals were kept within the territorial jurisdiction of the panchayat circle for twenty-four hours, even though they were sent out of the panchayat circle after twenty-four hours and were not consumed or used within the panchayat circle. It is, therefore, prayed that bye-law No. 14 being ultra vires of sec. 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act of 1953, should be struck down as invalid. 4. The writ application is contested on behalf of all the respondents, but the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 is only one of denial and, therefore, it is very vague. In the reply, which has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is contended that "the bye-law in question is in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder." 5. The simple question for determination of the Court therefore is, whether the said bye-law No. 14 went beyond the provisions of sec. 59 (b)(iv) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, or sec. 64 (1)(f) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The relevant portion of sec. 59 of the former Act runs as follows:— "Sec. 59—Taxes which may be imposed-Any municipal board— (a) after observing the preliminary procedure required by sec. 60, and (b) with the sanction of the Government and subject to such modifications tor conditions as under sec. 61 the Government in according such sanction deems fit, may impose, for the purposes of this Act, any one or more of the following taxes, namely:— (i) to (iii).................................................. (iv) an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption or use therein." 6. The relevant portion of sec. 61 the Government in according such sanction deems fit, may impose, for the purposes of this Act, any one or more of the following taxes, namely:— (i) to (iii).................................................. (iv) an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption or use therein." 6. The relevant portion of sec. 64 of the latter Act runs as follows:— "Sec. 64—Taxes which may be imposed— (1) Subject to the prescribed rules and any orders made by the State Government in this behalf, a Panchayat may impose one or more of the following taxes, namely: — [a] to [e]............................................... [f] an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the panchayat circle for consumption or use therein. It would appear from a comparison of the two sections appearing in the two Acts, referred above, that the provisions about the imposition of octroi tax in both the Acts were identical. Under the Municipalities Act, the Municipal Board could impose octroi duty only or animals or goods or both which were brought within its limits for consumption or use therein, but it had no authority to impose that tax on goods or animals which only passed through the limits of the municipality and were taken away outside its limits. The powers of the Panchayat to impose this tax are not wider than those which were given to the municipality. It may be pointed out here that by the amendment, which was made by the Zila Parishads Act, and the further amendment which was made in the year 1961, it was provided in sec. 4 (3)(e) as follows:— "Sec.4 (3) (e)—Until new rules and bye-laws are framed under this Act, the rules and byelaws applicable to the said municipal board shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, apply to the Pancha yat so established as if they had been duly made by or for such Panchayat." 7. It is common ground between the parties that the Panchayat has not framed fresh bye-laws and that on account of the said provision, the bye-laws framed by the municipal board are being applied by the Panchayat. 8. Now, careful perusal of the imposed bye-law No. 14 would show that it may be divided into two parts. It is common ground between the parties that the Panchayat has not framed fresh bye-laws and that on account of the said provision, the bye-laws framed by the municipal board are being applied by the Panchayat. 8. Now, careful perusal of the imposed bye-law No. 14 would show that it may be divided into two parts. In the first part, it is laid down that "if the goods are brought within the territorial limits of the municipality, but if they are not meant for use or consumption within its limits and that if they are sent out of the limits of the municipality according to bye-law No. 13, then no octroi tax would be charged thereon." The next part which begins with a but however, says that "if any such goods would be stored at godowns or shops within the limits of the municipality for more than 24 hours, then it would be obligatory to pay tax thereon and it would be unlawful to take away such goods outside the limits without the payment of the tax." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very candidly conceded that he does not want to challenge the first part of the bye-law. It is only about the second part that it is urged by him vehemently that octroi tax could not be charged from a person simply because the goods or animals were kept within the limits of the municipality before 1959 or within the limits of the panchayat circle after 1959 for more than twenty-four hours, even though they are taken away outside the limits. It would be pertinent to reproduce here bye-law No. 13 also to which reference has been made in bye-law No. 14. It would be pertinent to reproduce here bye-law No. 13 also to which reference has been made in bye-law No. 14. It runs as follows:— "Bye-law No. 13— ^^vxj dksbZ eky vFkok lkeku dsoy ikfydk dh lhek gksdj gh fudy jgk gks rks ,sls izR;sd vk;kr djus okys O;fDr vFkok O;kikfj;ksa dks vko;d gksxk fd og ,sls eky ds fudkl ds fy;s ikfydk {ks= esa izosk gksrs gh ikfydk }kjk fu/kkZfjr fudkl&i= izkIr djsa vkSj vUr es dj laxzg dk;kZy; ij fujh{k.k djok dj fudkl&i= okfil tek djkosaA ,sls fudkl&i= ,d vkuk izfr fudkl i= ds izkIr gksus ij fn;s tk;saxsA** It is clear from the perusal of this bye-law No. 13 that neither the municipality nor the Gram Panchayat wanted to charge octroi tax on those goods or animals which only passed through its limits and which were in fact taken away elsewhere, that, is, outside its limits. In order, however, to keep a check on goods which were only in transit, it was provided that the person bringing those goods which were meant to be taken outside the limits of the municipality, should obtain a transit pass as soon as the goods or animals were brought within the territorial limits of the municipality and that the transit pass should be handed over at the relevant exit post when the goods or animals were taken away outside the territorial limits. It appears that the second part of bye-law No. 14 was inserted to raise a presumption that the goods or animals, which were not taken away outside the municipal limits, would be deemed to be meant for consumption or use within the limits of the municipality and that they would be liable to be taxed. But instead of framing the bye-law to bring out that meaning, it was framed in a different language according to which the tax may be realised if the goods or animals are stored within the municipal limits for more than twenty four hours even though they are sent out thereafter. In our opinion, the second part of this bye-law as framed is bad being violative of the provisions of sec. 59(b) (iv) of the Act and of sec. 64(l)(f) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. 10. In our opinion, the second part of this bye-law as framed is bad being violative of the provisions of sec. 59(b) (iv) of the Act and of sec. 64(l)(f) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. 10. We do not mean to say that a person, who wants to take away goods or animals beyond the limits of the panchayat circle, should not obtain a transit pass required by bye-law No. 13. Its validity has not been challenged before us. It is open to the panchayat to frame a bye-law for raising a presumption like the one referred above, if the goods or animals are kept within its limits beyond a reasonable period of time. However, in that case, if the person bringing such goods or animals is able to satisfy the panchayat that they are not consumed or used within its limits, then he should be entitled to get a refund, because the panchayat is not authorised to charge octroi duty on animals or goods which are not consumed or used within its territorial limits. The second part of bye-law No. 14, as framed, does not show that it simply enables the Board to raise a presumption. It makes it obligatory for people keeping the goods stored for twnenty-four hours to pay the tax and further says that it would be unlawful for them to remove the goods outside the territorial limits without paying the tax. There is no provision for refund of the tax if the goods are taken away outside the territorial limits. This part is, therefore, ultra vires of the Act and has to be struck down. 11. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the second part of bye-law No. 14, which is reproduced below, is declared null and void, being ultra vires of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, and the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, referred above. "Bye-law No. 14— ^^-----------------------------fdUrq ,slk eky 24 ?kUVksa ls vf/kd le; rd ikfydk {ks= esa fLFkr xksnkeksa esa vFkok nqdkuksa eas j[kk tkosxk] rks mldk dj nsuk vko;d gksxk rFkk ,slk lkeku fcuk dj fn;s ys tkuk voS/kkfud gksxkA** In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.