Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 964 (PNJ)

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-08-21

G.S.SINGHVI, NIRMAL SINGH

body2000
ORDER G.S. Singhvi, J. - This is a petition for quashing of the order dated 66.2000 vide which the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Begowal (respondent No. 3) rejected the petitioners prayer for restraining the octroi contractors (respondents No. 4 to 7) from collecting octroi on the stock of poultry brought within the limits of Nagar Panchayat. 2. The facts : The petitioners are engaged in the business of sale of livestock of poultry in Village Begowal, which falls within the municipal limits of Nagar Panchayat, Begowal (respondent No. 2). In 1996, they filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Notified Area Committee and the octroi contractor from collecting octroi on the poultry brought within the municipal limits of Begowal. They also applied for temporary injunction. The learned trial Court passed an order of injunction which was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala and Civil Revision No. 2704 of 1997 filed by the Notified Area Committee was disposed of as infructuous because during the pendency of the revision petition, the main suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala. 3. Respondents No. 4 to 7 were awarded contract by the Nagar Panchayat, Begowal for collection of octroi for the period from 22.10.1999 to 21.10.2000. They filed C.W.P. No. 16651 of 1999 for issuance of a writ of mandamus/prohibition directing respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the collection of octroi on livestock brought within the municipal limits for the purpose of selling meat etc. The petitioners were also impleaded as respondents No. 4 and 5 in that petition. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench on 4.5.2000 in the following terms : "The petitioners have jointly obtained a contract for the collection of octroi on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat of Begowal, District Kapurthala. The contract is valid up to October, 2000. The grievance made by the petitioners is that the Nagar Panchayat is not rendering assistance to the staff of the petitioners in collecting octroi from respondents No. 4 and 5 and some others on the goods/livestock imported by them within the municipal limits. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, it is conceded that the petitioners have been awarded the contract and that they are entitled to collect octroi on the import of goods/livestock within the municipal limits. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, it is conceded that the petitioners have been awarded the contract and that they are entitled to collect octroi on the import of goods/livestock within the municipal limits. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to render all possible assistance to the petitioners in collecting the octroi from respondents No. 4 and 5 as per the schedule. No costs." 4. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners sought review of the order dated 4.5.2000 by filing an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that their advocate could not appear on the date of hearing and in view of the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, they were not liable to pay octroi. That application was disposed of by the Court on 10.5.2000 with an observation that it would be open to the applicants to contend before the Nagar Panchayat that no octroi is leviable on their livestock and such plea will be decided by the competent authority before allowing the contractors to collect the octroi. 5. On the strength of the observations made by this Court, the petitioners submitted representation Annexure P.9 for restraining respondents No. 4 to 7 from collecting octroi on the stock of poultry brought within the municipal limits. Their prayer has been declined by respondent No. 3 on the premise that poultry is covered by Entry 5 of the Octroi Schedule published vide Punjab Government notification No. 9/9/93/8LGIII/ 377 dated 10.1.1994. 6. Shri T.P. Singh argued that the impugned order should be declared as void because it is contrary to the decree dated 16.1.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, Learned counsel submitted that the predecessor of respondent No. 2 was a party to the suit filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the decree passed in favour of the petitioners is binding on the said respondent and its functionaries. He further argued that the view taken by respondent No. 3 on the issue of levy of octroi on the poultry is perverse and is against all canons of interpretation. He further argued that the view taken by respondent No. 3 on the issue of levy of octroi on the poultry is perverse and is against all canons of interpretation. Learned counsel pointed out that the word used in Entry 5 of Category-I of the Octroi Schedule is poultry and not meat of poultry, as sought to be made out by respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the order passed by him should be declared illegal. He also laid emphasis on the use of the expression "not bottled or canned" in the said Entry and submitted that by applying the rule of ejesdum generis, it should be declared that the livestock of poultry does not fall within the ambit of Entry 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General and Shri K.S. Dadwal defended the order passed by respondent No. 3 by arguing that the word used in Entry 5 is clearly referable to the stock of poultry because the meat of poultry is an article of food for human consumption. 7. We have given serious thought to the respective submissions. Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, the Act) empowers the Municipal Committee/Nagar Panchayat to impose various types of taxes. Section 62-A(1) empowers the State Government to issue special or general order requiring the Committee to impose any of the taxes mentioned in Section 61. Sub-section (2) of Section 62-A empowers the State Government to modify the rate of any tax already imposed. In exercise of that power, the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government issued notification dated 10.1.1994 for adoption of the revised octroi rates enumerated in the Schedule. The items on which the octroi is to be levied by the Municipal Committees/Notified Area Committees are divided into following 17 categories : Category I Articles of Food and Drink for Human and Animal Consumption. Category II Tobacco, Alcoholic drinks and other intoxicants Category III Animals for Sale and Consumption Category IV Commercial Heavy Chemicals, Chemicals Medicines Category V Textiles and Manufactured Articles of Dress Category VI Articles of General Merchandise, Toilets, Perfumery, Lighting and Washing. Category VII Scientific Apparatus, Instruments of Music and Amusement Category VIII Electric Goods Category IX Sports, Games and Toys Category X Stationery and Paper Category XI Leather, Rubber, Canvas and Articles made thereof. Category VII Scientific Apparatus, Instruments of Music and Amusement Category VIII Electric Goods Category IX Sports, Games and Toys Category X Stationery and Paper Category XI Leather, Rubber, Canvas and Articles made thereof. Category XII Metals and Articles made of Metal except under Articles Category XIII Category XIV Mineral and Lubricating Oils Category XV Articles used for Construction of Building, Fittings and Furniture. Category XVI Fuel Category XVII Miscellaneous." Entry 5 of Category-I, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition reads as under : "5. Fresh fish, eggs, game birds, bacon, ham, meat, mutton and poultry not bottled or canned." 8. A bare reading of the heading of Category-I and various entries contained therein shows that the goods enumerated therein are articles of food and drink for human and animal consumption. Therefore, if we come to the conclusion that poultry is an article of food for human and/or animal consumption, then the levy of octroi on the poultry brought within the municipal limits/Nagar Panchayat will have to be upheld, else the impugned order will be liable to be quashed. 9. As regards fresh fish, eggs, bacon, ham, meat and mutton, there is no difficulty because they are well known as articles of food for human consumption. However, there is some difficulty in interpreting the words "game birds" and "poultry". If these were interpreted in isolation, one may tend to think that they are not articles for human or animal consumption, but a careful analysis of Entry 5 in the context of the heading of the category leaves little room for doubt that "game birds" and "poultry" fall within the ambit of the said Entry. The word "poultry" has not been defined in the Act or the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it will be useful to refer to the dictionary meaning of the word. As per the New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, the word "poultry" means domestic fowls, ducks, geese, turkeys, etc., reared for food. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word "poultry" has been defined as : domestic fowls collectively; those tame birds which are reared for their flesh, eggs, or feathers, as barndoor fowls, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea-fowls (excluding pigeons, pheasants, etc.); sometimes limited to the barndoor fowl with its varieties; also applied to the birds as dressed for market or prepared for food. According to New Laxicon Websters Dictionary, the word poultry means : chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys and other domesticated birds raised for food. 10. In view of these dictionary meanings, there is little difficulty in holding that the live-stock of poultry is included in Entry 5 of Category-I of the Octroi. The inclusion of "game birds" in Entry 5 is also indicative of the intention of the government to make the live-stock of poultry subject to octroi by treating it to be an article of food for human consumption. 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the order passed by respondent No. 3 declaring that the live-stock of poultry brought within the municipal limits of Nagar Panchayat is liable to octroi cannot be termed as illegal. 12. The argument of Shri T.P. Singh that the impugned order should be declared as ultra vires to the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala sounds attractive, but lacks merit and deserves to be rejected in view of the orders dated 4.5.2000 and 10.5.2000 passed by this Court. We had sent for the record of C.W.P. No. 16651 of 1999 to find out whether the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge was brought to the notice of the Bench which had decided the writ petition filed by respondents No. 4 to 7. A perusal of that record shows that the petitioners had not only produced the said decree before the Court, but also pleaded that in view of the same, the petitioners (respondents No. 4 to 7 herein) are not entitled to collect octroi on the live-stock of poultry. In view of this, it must be presumed that the Court had, after taking into consideration the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, directed respondent No. 3 to decide the issue of levy of octroi on the livestock of poultry. Therefore, the petitioners cannot rely upon the decree for seeking invalidation of the order passed by respondent No. 3. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.