S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) TWO residents of village Ranmalpur in Surendranagar District have filed this petition in which they challenge the notifications issued by the State Government declaring Ranmalpur village as a distur- bed area so as to deploy additional police there for the purpose of maintaining law and order and imposing upon the Kanbi Patels of the village punitive tax. They were issued under sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 ( 2 ) ON 22nd June 1974 there was a very serious incident which took place between Kanbi Patels and Harijans in Ranmalpur village. It has been described in the report which the District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar made to the District Magistrate Surendranagar on 26th June 1974 It is at Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat. It is necessary to refer to the nature of the incident in order to appreciate the challenge which has been raised in this petition. The District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar repor- ted to the District Magistrate Surendranagar the following facts. Kanbi Patels constitute the majority or the predominant community in Ranmal- pur village. On account of the dry weather the well from which the Harijans had been d-awing water had dried up and therefore they had been drawing water from an adjacent common well. The Kanbi Patels objected to the Harijans drawing water from that common well. On 28th May 1974 the Harijans were prevented by Kanbi Patels from drawing water from that well and in the process the earthen pots brought by the Hari- jans for taking water from the well were smashed or broken. The Hari- jans thereafter approached higher authorities in order to get redress of their grievance. They approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police Harijan Cell Rajkot District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar the Collector Surendranagar Jilla Harijan Seva Sangh P. S. I. Halvad and Taluka Development Officer Halvad. An inquiry was made by the Police Sub-Inspector Halvad. As a result of that inquiry the Police Sub-Inspe- ctor found that the complaint made by the Harijans was true. He there fore registered offences under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code and under secs. 7 and 10 of the Untouchability Act. Interim bonds were taken from seven persons who were accused of having committed offences Police arrangements were made for maintaining law and order in the village. He there fore registered offences under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code and under secs. 7 and 10 of the Untouchability Act. Interim bonds were taken from seven persons who were accused of having committed offences Police arrangements were made for maintaining law and order in the village. On 22nd June 1974 at about 5-30 p. m. ladies belonging to Kanbi Patel community and the Harijans quarrelled on the question of drawing water from the common well. Two Police Constables who were on the spot on duty intervened and prevented the situation from deteriorating. The quarrelling ladies were separated by them. Kanbi Patel ladies went home and informed their men-folk of what had happened at the com- mon well. The Kanbi Patel men-folk went to the scene of offence armed with Dharias Lathis spades and other agricultural implements. The Sar- panch of the village Pitamber Jetha and his wife and other infuriated Kanbi Patels went to the scene surrounded the two Police Constables overpowered them beat them and snatched away from them their. 303 rifles. Thereafter they broke open the windows of the houses of the Harijans and mercilessly beat them. They had been under unbounded wrath and therefore they did not spare even the helpless victims who tried to save themselves by hiding inside their houses. Two persons died as a result of this incident. One of them was actually dragged out of his Kothi or grain-store and beaten to death. The other deceased who ran away was chased by the mob and beaten to death inside the temple. Two persons aged 65 years of age were injured. Their hands were fractured and they sustained wounds on their heads and legs. The Harijan ladies were also not spared and two policemen who were on duty there were also beaten by the mob. One of them was treated as an indoor patient in the hospital where the wound sustained by him on his head was required to be sutured. Another Police Constable received injuries on his back and leg. The District Superintendent of Police described in his report the attack made by the Kanbi Patels on the Harijans as savage inasmuch as the Kanbi Patels did not spare old Harijan men and women and caused extensive damage to their household utensils and properties. Another Police Constable received injuries on his back and leg. The District Superintendent of Police described in his report the attack made by the Kanbi Patels on the Harijans as savage inasmuch as the Kanbi Patels did not spare old Harijan men and women and caused extensive damage to their household utensils and properties. The houses of the Harijans were ransacked and their gold and silver ornaments and cash were looted. The incident was still more savage on account of the fact that when it happened only the aged and physi- cally weak Harijans were present because most of the young and able bodied males and famales had gone for daily labour in order to earn their bread. The houses of the Harijans and their movables were exten- sively damaged and destroyed. The scene of the incident bore blood marks. 122 persons were named as accused in-the first information report which was lodged with the police out of which according to the District Superintendent of Police 100 had been arrested when he received the report in question. He further reported that he had deployed for maintenance of law and order one Police Inspector three Police Sub-Inspectors and 45 Constables including State Reserved Policemen. In addition to it the Deputy inspector General of Police Rajkot Range had sent a platoon of State Reserved Policemen to maintain law and order in the village. On these facts which came to the knowledge of the District Superintendent of Police he reported to the District Magistrate Surendranagar that the Kanbi Patels the majority community has perpetrated on the unarmed and helpless Hari- jans of Ranmalpur village a serious attack without any provocation. The only fault of the Harijans was that they had been trying to draw water from the common well to quench their thirst. To his report he annexed two sets of details. They show that in this incident two Harijans were killed two were seriously injured and four Harijan ladies were also seriously injured. The second statement of details shows that so far as movable and immo- vable properties were concerned the Harijans according to him had sustained damage to their property to the tune of Rs. 37 995 It consisted of damage to houses and house-hold articles of Harijans and loss of cash gold and silver looted by Kanbi Patels. The second statement of details shows that so far as movable and immo- vable properties were concerned the Harijans according to him had sustained damage to their property to the tune of Rs. 37 995 It consisted of damage to houses and house-hold articles of Harijans and loss of cash gold and silver looted by Kanbi Patels. It is under these circumstances that a criminal case in the first instance was instituted against a number of persons. They included Kanbi Patels Kumbhars Kolis and Bava Sadhus. 17 of the several persons who were arraigned before the Criminal Court- were convicted and the rest were acquitted. Appeal against the conviction awarded to the seventeen of the accused persons is pending in this High Court. In order to restore law and order and to reestablish a sense of security amongst the Harijans of Ranmalpur village the Government issued on 11th July 1974 a notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 by which the Government declared the entire Ranmalpur village as a disturbed area which required the deployment of additional police for a period of three months. On the same day the Government issued a second notification under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 by which they ordered that Kanbi Patel families of Ranmalpur village should pay in equal shares a sum of Rs. 36 244 56 as a tax in order to enable the State Government to meet the cost of additional Police deployed for the purpose of maintaining law and order in Ranmalpur village. It may be stated that pursuant to the first mentioned notification the State Govern- ment deployed one platoon of State Reserve Police at Ranmalpur village for a period of three months in the first instance. One platoon consisted of six Head Constables and 30 Constables. ( 3 ) IT is the validity of these two notifications which is challenged by the petitioners in this petition. ( 4 ) MR. Vyas who appears for the petitioners has raised before me the following contentions:1 The notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act is ultra vires the section itself. 2 The notification issued under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 is vague as to the persons who were rendered liable to pay the punitive tax and is therefore bad and void in law. (1) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act is ultra vires the section itself. 2 The notification issued under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 is vague as to the persons who were rendered liable to pay the punitive tax and is therefore bad and void in law. 3 Recovery of punitive tax only from Kanbi Patels offends the provis- ions of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 4 In any case the amount of punitive tax imposed by the State Govern- ment upon Kanbi Patels has been arbitrarily fixed. The punitive tax imposed by the State Government upon the Kanbi Patels of Ranmalpur village is really not a tax but a fee for services rendered. Therefore the Kanbi Patels ought to have been heard before it was imposed upon them. Since no opportunity of being heard was given to them the impost is bad in law. 5 The first contention which Mr. Vyas has raised requires a look at the first notification issued by the State Government on 11th July 1974. The opening part of that notification states that the conduct of a section of the inhabitants of village Ranmalpur has rendered it expedient temporarily to employ additional Police therein. The operative part of that notification states that on account of the aforesaid reason the Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 specified the whole village of Ranmalpur as the area in which additional Police is to be employed and the period of three months with effect from the date of publication of this notificat- ion in the Official Gazette to be the period for which the additional Police shall be so employed. Now sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 provides as follows:if in the opinion of the State Government any area is in a disturbed or dangerous condition or in which the conduct of the inhabitants or of any particular section of the inhabitants renders it expedient temporarily to employ additional Police it may by notification in the Official Gazette specify- (a) the area (hereinafter called the disturbance area) in which the additional Police is to be employed (b) the period for which the additional Police is to be employed. Provided that the period fixed under clause (b) may be extended by the State Government from time to time if in its opinion it is necessary to do so in the general interest of the public. The cost of the additional Police shall be a tax imposed under this section and shall be recovered in the manner prescribed in the succeeding sub-sections. THEREFORE the condition precedent to the issuance of the notification under sub-sec. (1) is the prevalence of a disturbed or dangerous condition in any area or the conduct of the inhabitants or of any particular section of the inhabitants in the area which renders it expedient temporarily to employ additional Police. Mr. Vyas has argued that the expression in which the conduct of the inhabitants or of any particular section on the inhabitants renders it expedient temporarily to employ additional Police necessarily presupposes that persons whose conduct renders the issuance of notification under sub-sec. (1) expedient must be specified. This is the first leg of his argument. I am unable to accede to this argument raised by Mr. Vyas. Sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act does not require that the names of the persons whose conduct renders it expedient to employ additional Police in an area should be specified. The problem with which sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 deals is a problem of law and order where a quick action is necessary in order to save as much damage as possible. if the State Government is required to specify the names of the miscreants in its notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 it will not only defeat the very object of a quick action which such a situation necessarily demands but would also prejudge the criminal trial of the persons at which they may be arraigned. To accede to the argument raised by Mr. Vyas is to place an unduly strange construction upon a very simple expression used by the legislature in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50. In my opinion no construction upon a legislation can be placed which defeats or has the potentiality of defeating the object of the Legislation. It has next been argued by Mr. Vyas that the impugned notification is bad and void in law as it does not mention in precise and exact terms the disturbed area. (1) of sec. 50. In my opinion no construction upon a legislation can be placed which defeats or has the potentiality of defeating the object of the Legislation. It has next been argued by Mr. Vyas that the impugned notification is bad and void in law as it does not mention in precise and exact terms the disturbed area. The impugned notification describes the area in the following terms :the whole village of Ranmalpur as the area in which additional Police is to be employed reference to the entire village of Ranmalpur which is a small village consisting of 1466 residents is very exact and precise. It is not necessary that a disturbed area should be specified in the notification under sub- sec. (1) of sec. 50 with reference to its boundaries unless in a given case such a precise and exact description is necessary. Reference to the whole village of Ranmalpur is a reference to the entire area of Ranmalpur and to all people residing therein as not only understood by the people at large but also by the Government. The second leg of the contention which Mr. Vyas has raised is therefore without any substance and must be rejected. ( 5 ) IN a matter of maintenance of law and order it is the subjective satisfaction of the State Government which matters. If the State Govern- ment has arrived with a decision that situation in a particular area is so disturbed as it demands a quick or punitive action it is difficult to imagine that resort to quick and punitive action which a particular situation may be demanding should be notified or set at naught by an omission here or there as Mr. Vyas has tried to point out. I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned notification in terms of sub-sec (1) sec. 50 is a perfect and valid notification and suffers from no infirmity or error. However if there is any discrepancy anywhere no weight can be attached to it firstly in the interest of public peace and secondly on account of the provisions of sec. 50 is a perfect and valid notification and suffers from no infirmity or error. However if there is any discrepancy anywhere no weight can be attached to it firstly in the interest of public peace and secondly on account of the provisions of sec. 156 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 which provides as under :no rule order direction adjudication inquiry or notification made or published and no act done under any provision of this Act or of any rule made under this Act or in substantial conformity to the same shall be deemed illegal void invalid or insufficient by reason of any defect of form or any irregularity of procedure every notification issued under the Bombay Police Act 1951 has got to be looked at and scanned in light of the provisions of sec. 156. It cannot be declared to be illegal or void or invalid merely because it suffers from some defect of form or some irregularity of procedure. The first contention raised by Mr. Vyas is therefore without any substance and is rejected. ( 6 ) THE second contention which he has raised is of a similar nature. According to him in a notification issued under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act persons who were rendered liable to pay the punitive -tax ought to have been specified. Now that notification inter alia states as follows :the cost of additional Police set forth below should be recovered by the District Magistrate Surendranagar by a tax in equal shares from each of the Kanbi Patel families of the said village. MR. Vyas has argued that all Kanbi Patels Ranmalpur village did not participate in the outrage committed upon the Harijans. According to him therefore it was necessary that the tax should be collected from the miscreants who should be specified in the notification. It is difficult to uphold this argument raised by Mr. Vyas for more than one reason. The first reason is to be found in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 which provides as follows : on the issue of such notification the State Government may requirexxx xxx xxx (C) in any disturbance area which is outside the areas specified in clauses (a) and (b) the Collector or any other authority. Vyas for more than one reason. The first reason is to be found in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 which provides as follows : on the issue of such notification the State Government may requirexxx xxx xxx (C) in any disturbance area which is outside the areas specified in clauses (a) and (b) the Collector or any other authority. to recover whether in whole or in part the cost of such additional Police generally from all persons who are inhabitants of the disturbance area or specially from any particular section or sections or class or classes of such persons and in such proportion as the State Government may direct. . . . . . . . . The requirement of sub-sec. (3) is that in a notification issued under that sub-section a particular section or a class of persons residing in the disturbed area should be specified. It does not require that actual names of the miscreants should be specified Reference to Kanbi Patel families of Ranmalpur village is in my opinion a reference to a section of the inhabitants of Ranmalpur village or to a class or the inhabitants of Ran- malpur village. Therefore in terms of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 the second notification does not suffer from any infirmity. Mr. Vyas may be right in arguing that all families of Kanbi Patels resid- ing in Ranmalpur village had not participated in the perpetration of the outrage. Assuring that it is true it is open to a law-abiding Kanbi Patel family or a Kanbi Patel family of Ranmalpur village who had not parti- cipated in the perpetration of the outrage to claim exemption from the punitive tax under sub-sec. (6) of sec. 50. It reads thus :it shall be lawful for the State Government by order to exempt any person from liability to bear any portion of the cost of such additional Police. This is second reason why the contention raised by Mr. Vyas cannot be upheld. ( 7 ) IT is apposite in this context to refer to a few observations made by the Privy Council in BAGCHAND LAGDUSA GUJARATHI V. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA 29 BOMBAY LAW REPORTER 1227. It was a case of a similar punitive tax imposed under the Bombay District Police Act 1890 on the residents of Malegaon in Nasik District. It was a case of a similar punitive tax imposed under the Bombay District Police Act 1890 on the residents of Malegaon in Nasik District. This is what the Privy Council has observed in that context. AS for the rest of this branch of the complaint the Act does not require proof of the active complicity of a section of the inhabitants before such an order as the Act contemplates can be made. To imply such a requirement would defent the objects of the Act It is the essence of measures of this kind which in one form or another are not uncommon that one class has to pay for misdeeds of another but this in itself constitutes no objection to the course that was takenit has further been observed in that decision that those who are called on to apply such an Act as the Bombay District Act 1890 have not only the power but the duty of enforcing it when in their judgment a case has arisen which calls for its application and that they are the best and the only judges in that matter. The second contention raised by Mr. Vyas is therefore without any substance and must be rejected. ( 8 ) THE third contention which Mr. Vyas has raised relates to the validity of the recovery of the puntitive tax from Kanbi Patels under sub- sec. (3) of sec. 50 and under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Mr. Vyas has argued that by the punitive tax imposed under the impugned notification all the Kanbi Patels alone have been penalized. According to him the basis of imposition is caste and not class. According to him since the impost can be levied under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 only upon a class or a section its levy on the basis of the caste-the Kanbi Patels- offends the provisions of sub--sec. (3) of sec. 50. The argument raised by Mr. Vyas is without any substance. It was with a view to testing this argu- ment that I have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment the purport of the report which the District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar made to the District Magistrate Surendranagar. That report shows that the description of the miscreants as Kanbi Patels is merely a description simpliciter. It was with a view to testing this argu- ment that I have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment the purport of the report which the District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar made to the District Magistrate Surendranagar. That report shows that the description of the miscreants as Kanbi Patels is merely a description simpliciter. By referring to them in the popularly known manner what really the District Superintendent of Police has tried to do is to describe a section or a class of the miscreants who had perpetrated a savage outrage on the weak and helpless Harijans of the village for no fault of theirs. His report further shows that the miscreants consisted only of Patels. In the instant case therefore reference to Kanbi Patels is a reference the class of the miscreants who have been described in popular parlance as Kanbi Patels by which name they are popularly known. The impost levied on the miscreants is not in my opinion an impost levied upon Kanbi Patels in the sense that it is an impost upon a particular community the object of which is to penalize it. In the instant case therefore reference to Kanbi Patels is a reference to a section or a class of persons who had participated in the outrage and caused devastation of human life and property. The argument based upon sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 is devoid of any merit. ( 9 ) ARTICLE 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion race caste sec or place of birth. Mr. Vyas has tried to argue that the impost levied upon Kanbi Patels of Ranmalpur village discriminates against that caste alone even though according to him the misecrants included Kumbhars Kolis and Bava Sadhus. The report of the District Superintendent of Police does not show that there were any miscreants other than Kanbi Patels. Mr. Vyas has tried to draw sustunance for his argument from some Kumbhars Kolis and Bava Sadhus who were arrested in connection with this incident and arraigned before the Sessions Court at Surendranagar for trial. The report of the District Superintendent of Police does not show that there were any miscreants other than Kanbi Patels. Mr. Vyas has tried to draw sustunance for his argument from some Kumbhars Kolis and Bava Sadhus who were arrested in connection with this incident and arraigned before the Sessions Court at Surendranagar for trial. If some persons other than Kanbi Patels were arraigned for a trial before the Sessions Court it would not make any difference whatsoever firstly because a judicial trial cannot be equated with an executive action and secondly because the report which the District Superintendent of Police made to the District Magistrate Surendranagar clearly showed that the miscreants included only the members of the Kanbi Patel community of village Ranmalpur. Therefore judging the impost levied upon the Kanbi Patels of Ranmalpur village by the impugned notification in light of the report of the District Superintendent of Police referred to above it is clear that the impost has been levied not on the basis of any caste but on the basis of persons who were parties to the perpetration of outrage Since they happened to be members of Kanbi Patel community reference of Kanbi Patels has been made in the impugned notification. The reference to Kanbi Patels in the impugned notification is therefore not a reference to Kanbi Patel community as a caste but is a reference to the class of miscreants who indulged in savage assault on the poor and help- less Harijans. Taking into account these facts I am unable to come to the conclusion that the impost levied upon Kanbi Patels of Ranmalpur village to which the miscreants belonged violates the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution. If amongst the Kanbi Patels there were any who did not participate in the outrage or who were otherwise innocent it is open to them to claim exemption from the payment of the punitive tax by invoking the provisions of sub-sec. (6) of sec. 50. The test which I am applying while rejecting the contention raised by Mr. Vyas is this: If members of a particular caste alone rise in revolt could they not be subjected to the payment of punitive tax without violating the provisions of Article 15 ? (6) of sec. 50. The test which I am applying while rejecting the contention raised by Mr. Vyas is this: If members of a particular caste alone rise in revolt could they not be subjected to the payment of punitive tax without violating the provisions of Article 15 ? To take the view that under such circumstances levy of an impost upon the members of a caste who have risen in revolt offends Article 15 is to give a green signal to anti-social caste forces to per- petrate any sort of outrage and be protected by Article 15. I do not think any such view in the matter can be taken. ( 10 ) MR. Vyas has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS V. THAKUR PRATAP SINGH A. I. R. 1960 SUPREME COURT 1208 in which it has been laid down that where an exemption was granted under sec. 15 (5) of the Police Act (Central Act V of 1861) to the Harijan and Muslim inhabitants of the villages in which en additional Police force was stationed from the levy of the cost of the additional force it was discriminatory against the law abiding members of the other communities and in favour of the Muslim and Harijan communities on the basis only of caste or religion. According to the Supreme Court therefore the exemption which was granted was contrary to Article 15 (1) of the Constitution and therefore they struck it down. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that decision has in my opinion 110 application to the facts of this case for two reasons. The scheme of sec. 15 of the Police Act was much different from the scheme of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 provided that subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of this section the cost of such additional Police force shall be borne by the inhabitants of such area described in the proclamation. Sub-sec. (5) to which sub-sec. (3) was subject provided that it shall be lawful for the State Government by order to exempt any persons or class or section of such inhabitants from liability to bear any portion of such cost. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (5) to which sub-sec. (3) was subject provided that it shall be lawful for the State Government by order to exempt any persons or class or section of such inhabitants from liability to bear any portion of such cost. Sub-sec. (3) therefore required that the impost should be levied upon all inhabitants of the dis- turbed area and exemption should be granted to persons or class or section of persons from the liability of the impost if circumstances in their cases so warranted. While granting the exemption what the State Government had to consider was whether persons to whom they had granted exemption had been all law-abiding citizens. Therefore even if all the members of Muslim and Harijan communities were law--abiding and peaceful there was no reason why they alone should have been exempted from the liability. Along with them members of other communities who were peaceful and law-abiding ought to have been exempted from the liability of payment of the tax or the cost. That was not what was done by the State of Rajasthan in that case. Therefore inasmuch as the law-abiding and peaceful citizens of communities other than Muslim and Harijan communities were not given exemption from the liability of payment of tax which was granted to all members of Harijan and Muslim com- munities the exemption so granted offended the provisions of Article 15 (1 ). That is not the situation in the instant case In the instant case members of Kanbi Patel community have been the miscreants and it is they who have been subjected to the payment of the punitive tax under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50. In my opinion therefore if a class or a section of persons who are miscreants in whatever name they may be described and if they are subjected to the payment of a punitive tax and are referred to in the proclamation by the popular name or style of their community it does not offend Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. Secondly in the Supreme Court decision referred to above it was a matter of granting exemption after having levied the impost on all the inhabitants. That is not the scheme of sub-sec. (3) of section 50 which permits the levy of an impost only upon a class or a section of people. Secondly in the Supreme Court decision referred to above it was a matter of granting exemption after having levied the impost on all the inhabitants. That is not the scheme of sub-sec. (3) of section 50 which permits the levy of an impost only upon a class or a section of people. In the instant case the State Government has levied the impost or a class on a section of population consisting of miscreants. In my opinion therefore this decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the instant case and the principle laid down therein cannot be availed of by the petitioners in support of the contention which they have raised. ( 11 ) THE next argument which Mr. Vyas has raised before me is that whereas Kanbi Patels Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus were arrested in connection with the incident Kanbi Patels from amongst the mischief- mongers had alone been subjected to the liability of punitive tax. Accor- ding to him therefore Article 14 was violated inasmuch as Kanbi Patels were unduly discriminated against and Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus were unduly favoured though all of them were similarly situate. What Mr. Vyas has referred to is the arrest of several persons who were arraigned for trial before the Sessions Court. A look at the report of the District Superintendent of Police clearly shows that a few days after the incident when the District Superintendent of Police reported to the District Magistrate Surendranagar he was of the opinion that Kanbi Patels alone were the miscreants. I am not concerned in this inquiry with the question whether Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus were rightly or wrongly arrested. The fact remains that on the report of the District Superintendent of Police the State Government came to the conclusion that Kanbi Patels alone were the miscreants and that Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus had not been the miscreants. There was therefore no question of discrimination against Kanbi Patels or in favour of Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus. There was only one section of the population of Ranmalpur village which was branded by the District Superintendent of Police as miscreants and they were Kanbi Patels. There was therefore no question of discrimination against Kanbi Patels or in favour of Kolis Kumbhars and Bava Sadhus. There was only one section of the population of Ranmalpur village which was branded by the District Superintendent of Police as miscreants and they were Kanbi Patels. Therefore there was no other section of miscreants mentioned specified or referred to in the report of the District Superint- endent of Police ill whose context the discrimination can be said to have been exercised unduly against Kanbi Patels. In this connection it is necessary to note a few details in regard to the composition of the popula- tion of Ranmalpur village. It has a total population of 1466 inhabitants out of which 1020 are Kanbi Patels The remaining population of 446 consists of 109 Harijans 12 carpenters 8 blacksmiths 20 Brahmins 100 Rabaris 21 Kumbhars (potters) 76 Kolis 24 Bavajis 1 Barot 33 Valands (barbers) 31 Luhanas 5 Sonis (goldsmiths) and 6 Pinjaras. These figures clearly show that Kanbi Patels constitute the largest and the most dominant section of the population of Ranmalpur village. Harijans though much smaller in number as compared to Kanbi Patels are next to them. It is between these two sections of the population of Ranmalpur village that the incident happened. So far as Kumbhars Kolis and Bava Sadhus are concerned they are 21 76 and 24 respectively. So far as the families involved were concerned it was alleged that 119 Kanbi Patel families 2 Kumbhar families 1 Bawa family and 1 Koli family were involved in this incident. In these circumstances in light of what the District Superintendent of Police stated in his report if the State Government thought that Kanbi Patels were the source of the outrage and subjected them alone to the liability of punitive tax more particularly in absence of any reference to Kumbhars Kolis or Bava Sadhus in the report of the District Superintendent of Police I do not think the State Government while issuing the impugned notification and subjecting the Kanbi Patels to the liability of punitive tax discriminated against them. ( 12 ) MR. Vyas has invited my attention to the decision of B. ASWARTHA REDDY V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A. I. R. 1966 ANDHRA PRADESH 204. In that case a proclamation levying punitive tax under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 was issued. ( 12 ) MR. Vyas has invited my attention to the decision of B. ASWARTHA REDDY V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A. I. R. 1966 ANDHRA PRADESH 204. In that case a proclamation levying punitive tax under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 was issued. In light of the facts of that case the principle laid down in that decision has no application to the facts of the instant case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has analysed in that decision the scheme of sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 and recorded the conclusion that the impost should be levied on all people and exemption should be granted to such inhabitants or class or section of such inhabit- ants who were not responsible for the conduct which necessitated the increase in the police force in the disturbed area. In that case the proclamation which had been issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government did not levy the impost on all people in the first instance but levied it only on those who in the opinion of the Government were responsible for the conduct which led to the stationing of additional Police force. The Andhra Pradesh High Court therefore held that making only the persons specified in the notification liable for the cost of additional Police force and exempting the members of the opposite faction living in the same area though there were several cases pending against them was discrimina- tory and offended Article 14 of the Constitution. The scheme of sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 is much different from the scheme of sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 Secondly on the facts before the State Government as disclosed by the report of the District Superintendent of Police Kanbi Patels were the only miscreants. In light of these two circumstances the principle laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in that decision cannot be applied to the instant case. ( 13 ) PRESSING further his argument founded on Article 14 Mr. Vyas has argued that the imposition of punitive tax was arbitrary because the notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 and the notification under sub- sec. (3) of sec. 50 had been issued simultaneously and on the same day. According to him after having issued the notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. Vyas has argued that the imposition of punitive tax was arbitrary because the notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 and the notification under sub- sec. (3) of sec. 50 had been issued simultaneously and on the same day. According to him after having issued the notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 the State Government ought to have considered who should be subjected to the levy of the impost. Having considered that question the State Government ought to have issued notification under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50. In other words according to Mr. Vyas the levy of the impost is arbitrary because the action taken under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 was so quick in succession to the action taken under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 that there was hardly any time for the Government to consider after the notification under sub-sec- (1) of sec. 50 was issued whether notifica- tion under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 should be issued and if so in what form. According to him therefore the punitive levy is arbirtary because suffered from non-application of mind. I do not think I can uphold his argument of Mr. Vyas for the simple reason that the entire report of the District Superintendent of Police had been before the State Government to enable it to decide on the question after due considerat- on of issuance of both the notifications. Merely because notification under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 was issued in quick succession to or simultaneously with notification under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 it does not suffer either from non-application of mind or arbitrariness. ( 14 ) ONE more argument which Mr. Vyas has raised in support of this contention of his is that sec. 50 contemplates the recovery from the inhabitants of the affected area of the cost of additional Police. According to him the cost of additional Police is the cost which is specially incur- red for that purpose. In other words according to Mr. Vyas irrespective of whether a particular Police force is deployed in a particular area or not the salary and emoluments of the members of that police force have got to be paid. According to him the cost of additional Police is the cost which is specially incur- red for that purpose. In other words according to Mr. Vyas irrespective of whether a particular Police force is deployed in a particular area or not the salary and emoluments of the members of that police force have got to be paid. The situation which arises in a disturbed area and which necessitates the deployment of a special police force in that area does not give rise to the payment of salary and emoluments of that police force which would otherwise also be paid to them. What according to Mr. Vyas therefore constitutes the cost of additional Police is the mere cost of deploying them in the area such as transport cost or any other such cost necessitated only for their deployment in that area. According to Mr. Vyas therefore the expression the cost of additional Police means such cost specially incurred. Therefore Mr. Vyas has argued that the State Government was in error in levying upon the people in the nature of an impost the entire cost of deploying the Police force in Ranmalpur village consisting not only of cost specially incurred for that purpose but also the salary and emoluments which are in any case payable to them. I am unable to uphold that argument raised by Mr. Vyas firstly because I cannot read the cost of additional police as meaning the additional cost specially incurred for deploying the additional police. The expression cost used in sec. 50 is wide enough to include not only the cost specially incurred for the purpose of deploying additional Police force but all costs regularly and normally incurred as well as specially incurred. Secondly I am unable to uphold the argument raised by Mr. Vyas because the section contemplates not the levy of the cost on the inhabitants of the disturbed area but it contemplates the impost of a tax on them. The expression the cost of the additional Police shall be a tax imposed under this section used in sub-sec. 1 of sec. 50 means that what the State Government is empowered and authorised to impose upon the people of the disturbed area is a tax the method of computing which has been stated in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 and termed as the cost of the additional Police. 1 of sec. 50 means that what the State Government is empowered and authorised to impose upon the people of the disturbed area is a tax the method of computing which has been stated in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 and termed as the cost of the additional Police. In other words the cost of deploying additional Police in the disturbed area is merely a measure or method to arrive at the amount of tax to which the people in the disturbed area should be subjected. Therefore the argument advanced by Mr. Vyas on the analysis of the expression cost is in my opinion thoroughly misconceived. What the people are required to pay is a tax. It is immaterial how it is computed. Whether it is computed in terms of the cost of the additional Police deployed or in any other manner is immaterial except for the purpose of satisfying the statutory standard of computation laid down by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50. In the view which I have taken it is impossible for me to uphold the conten- tion raised by Mr. Vyas on the basis of the arguments advanced by him. The third contention raised by Mr. Vyas is therefore without any sub- stance and is rejected. 5a So far as the fourth contention raised by Mr. Vyas is concerned he has tried to argue it on the basis of what he calls unreasonable appor- tionment of the punitive tax amongst the families of Kanbi Patels. Accord- ing to him the punitive tax ought not to have been apportioned equally amongst all families of Kanbi Patels irrespective of their economic conditions. In other words according to Mr. Vyas levy of the punitive tax upon the Kanbi Patel families ought to have been in consonance with their economic conditions that is to say a richer Kanbi Patel family ought to have been required to pay more than a less fortunate Kanbi Patel family. The argument advanced by Mr. Vyas on the basis of economic equality is totally irrelevant to the problem. In criminal matters it is the participation in disorder or outrage and its intensity which are material factors to determine the apportionment of the punitive levy and not economic conditions of the families subjected to it. The argument advanced by Mr. Vyas on the basis of economic equality is totally irrelevant to the problem. In criminal matters it is the participation in disorder or outrage and its intensity which are material factors to determine the apportionment of the punitive levy and not economic conditions of the families subjected to it. The report of the District Superintendent of Police shows that the Kanbi Patels who had participated in the outrage had done so with great fury and unbounded savagery. The intensity of a criminal offence does not vary with economic conditions of the miscreants. In my opinion therefore varying economic conditions of Kanbi Patel families have no rel- evance to the question and have no relation to the intensity and fury with which they participated in the criminal outrage. The concept of economic equality and the concept of criminal intensity are totally different concepts and are not necessarily correlated- In my opinion therefore the fourth contention raised by Mr. Vyas is without any substance and is rejected. ( 15 ) THE last contention which Mr. Vyas has raised raises in a reverse form the delicate question of what is fee and what is tax raised in so many cases earlier in this Court and other High Courts and the Supreme Court. Ordinarily it is argued that what a public authority has levied in the form of a fee is a tax and that it should be struck down because it has no authority or power to levy it or because it has been levied without following the procedure prescribed for Serving the tax. In the instant case what Mr. Vyas has argued is that though the punitive levy has been imposed as a tax it is really a fee and that therefore those who have been subjected to it ought to have been heard before they were subjected to it. He has indeed tried to point out to me the distinction between a tax and a fee. There is no generic difference between the two. Both are compulsory exactions of monies. However a fee is a compul- sory exaction in lieu of services rendered. In other words there is an element of quid pro quo in a fee. In case of a tax there is no such clement present. it is an outright compulsory exaction without any reference to any services rendered. Both are compulsory exactions of monies. However a fee is a compul- sory exaction in lieu of services rendered. In other words there is an element of quid pro quo in a fee. In case of a tax there is no such clement present. it is an outright compulsory exaction without any reference to any services rendered. The question therefore which I have to consider is whether the punitive levy imposed upon the Kanbi Patels of Ranmalpur village by the second notification is a tax or a fee. In order to examine this question it is necessary to turn to sub sec. (3) of sec. 50 which empowers the State Government to recover whether in whole or in part the cost of such additional Police generally from all persons who are inhabitants of the disturbed area or specially from any particular section or sections or class or classes of such persons and in such proportion as the State Government my direct. This impost has been described in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 50 as a tax imposed under this section. Therefore so far as the section under which it is imposed is concerned it describes it as a tax. However merely because the section describes it as a tax it does not necessarily assume the characteristics of a tax. It may be a fee. Mr. Vyas has argued that by stationing the additional Police in Ranmalpur village the State Government tried to render special service to a section of its inhabitants by protecting them against the misdeeds of the miscreants of that village. In my opinion it is the basic duty of the State to maintain law and order. Special law and order problems do not always arise. In such a case the deployment of special Police or additional Police may not always be necessary. However that is not to say that no special law and order problem will ever arise. In discharge of its basic and fundamental duty to maintain law and order the State Government has got to deal with a special law and order problem if it has arisen in a particular area. However that is not to say that no special law and order problem will ever arise. In discharge of its basic and fundamental duty to maintain law and order the State Government has got to deal with a special law and order problem if it has arisen in a particular area. In order to solve that problem and restore normalcy in that area if the State Government deploys special Police force it does not in my opinion render any special service to any community or a section thereof in that area but merely discharges its basic and fundamental duty of maintaining law and order in the area under its governance. I therefore think that deployment of additional Police force in Ranmalpur village cannot and did not amount to rendering of any special service to any section of the inhabitants of Ranmalpur village. The State Government had been merely discharging its basic obligation of maintaining law and order in the area under its governance. To say that the State which is charged with the obligation of maintaining law and order is rendering a special service by controlling anti-social elements and putting down the disturbance in a particular area is to give it greater credit and importance than it deserves The State which is not able to maintain law and order in the area under its governance is not worth the name. It is not the State at all. The State is established in order amongst other basic things to ensure security to the citizens in the territory under its control and to enable them to live peacefully and happily as a community and to have smooth and normal social intercourse amongst them. It is wrong therefore to say that the State Government by deploying additional Police in Ranmalpur village to solve the law and order problem which had arisen rendered a special service to Ranmalpur village and therefore claimed a fee in the form of a punitive tax from them. If such a punitive levy is a fee because by discharging its basic obligation it has rendered special service to the people then in my opinion all taxes will be fees because security of an integrated social life which a community has will not be available to the politically organised community if there is no State and if there are no taxes to run it. The concept of special service which Mr. Vyas has argued therefore is such in the facts of this cases that it is difficult to uphold it. Since my opinion there was no special service rendered by the State Government by deploying additional Police force at Ranmalpur village what it levied was not a fee. ( 16 ) MR. Vyas has invited my attention to the principle laid down by the Mysore High Court in a decision to which I am incidentally referring. He has not produced before me that decision of the Mysore High Court. He has shown me the purport of the decision digested in 15 Years Digest 1951-65 Vol. I published by All India Reporter Ltd. It was a case under sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 with which I am concerned. The principle as digested states that although sec. 50 states that the cost of the additional Police employed shall be regarded as a tax imposed under sub-sec. (1) such cost the payment of which may be demanded under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 50 is not really a tax. It is a fee recovered from the inhabitants of a village nd not a tax and in some cases it is not even a fee but is really in the nature of a penalty or punishment. Having taken that view the Mysore High Court has further observed that in such a case rules of natural justice dictate that the persons who are called upon to pay that fee should be given an opport- unity to show cause against it. In conclusion they held that since that procedure was not followed the demands impugned in that case and made on the petitioner in that case were made without any authority of law. This is the principle which has been digested from (1962) 40 Mysore Law Journal 341. (DB ). I am unable to make use of this principle in absence of the full report of the decision before me. However if I am required to express any opinion on this principle in light of what I have stated above I am unable to agree to it. ( 17 ) MR. Shah who appears on behalf of the State Government has invited my attention to the decision of the Punjab High Court in DASONDHA SINGH AND OTHERS V. PUNJAB STATE. A. I. R. 1957 PUNJAB 13. Mr. ( 17 ) MR. Shah who appears on behalf of the State Government has invited my attention to the decision of the Punjab High Court in DASONDHA SINGH AND OTHERS V. PUNJAB STATE. A. I. R. 1957 PUNJAB 13. Mr. Justice Khosla while dealing with a similar question under sec. 15 of the Police Act 1861 has observe; that it is not essential to inform the villagers before they can be asked to pay the expenses of the additional Police. According to him notice is usually necessary only if the person to whom the notice is issued has the right of showing cause against it. In his view that was not the intention of the Police Act. He has not dealt with the question in the form in which it has been raised before me by Mr. Vyas. However the observations which he has made help Mr. Shah in advancing his argument that in the matter of levy of punitive tax it is not necessary to call upon the persons likely to be affected in the disturbed area to show cause against it. In my opinion therefore the punitive tax contemplated by sec. 50 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 is a tax and not a fee. The persons likely to be affected by that impost have no right to be heard before it is levied on them. The last contention raised by Mr. Vyas therefore fails and is rejected. ( 18 ) IN the result I find no substance in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Vyas. All of them fail and are rejected. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs. .