Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 641 (UTT)

AASGAR ALI v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT, RANIPUR, HARIDWAR

2006-11-15

DHARAM VEER, P.C.VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the levy of collection of (Teh Bazari) fee for services rendered in the area which previously was within the area of Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur. 2. Vide notification dated 19.5.1995 issued by the State Government issued in exercise of powers under provision to article 243 (Q) of Constitution of India, the area in question has been notified as industrial area. It is not in dispute that after the issuance of the said notification dated 19.5.1995, the said area which falls within the said notification, that shall be governed by the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur ceases to exercise any of its powers in that area. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were carrying on business prior to the notification and after the notification also in that area which was notified by notification dated 19.5.1995. The Teh Bazari which was being levied and collected for the services rendered, those services are still being rendered by the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur. 3. In view of the change position after issuance of notification dated 19.5.1995, the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur stood abolished and ceased to exist. The petitioners carry their business in the small shops and still they are allowed to carry their business by the B.H.E.L. even after that notification. The employees employed by the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur up to sweepers are still working there and are under the employment. The source of payment of salary to the employees employed by erstwhile Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur was the levy and collection of Teh Bazari. No government grant ever has been given to the erstwhile Nagar Panchayat after 19.5.1995 and after the collection of Teh Bazari fees, the salaries are being paid. 4. The question, which arises for determination is as whose employees who are under the employment of Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur and who are still serving, shall be? It is not in dispute that after the notification dated 19.5.1995, the B.H.E.L. has allowed those other employees to continue to run their service and their salary is being paid to them from that levy and office is also being run. It is not in dispute that after the notification dated 19.5.1995, the B.H.E.L. has allowed those other employees to continue to run their service and their salary is being paid to them from that levy and office is also being run. Thus, after the notification dated 19.5.1995, the date on which the existence of Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur came to end, these employees shall be treated to be the employees of the BHEL as the services are still being rendered by these employees. Meaning thereby, the services are being rendered by the B.H.E.L. after the notification dated 19.5.1995 through those employees which were employed by the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur prior to the notification dated 19.5.1995. 5. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. Since the Nagar Panchayat, Ranipur is not in existence and we as have held that the employees shall be the employees of the B.H.E.L and services shall rendered by the B.H.E.L., the B.H.E.L. shall collect the Teh Bazari from the petitioners. The amount deposited by the petitioners shall be transferred to the B.H.E.L. However, if the B.H.E.L. reduces the services of the employees rendered at present on the principle of quid pro quo, the Teh Bazari fees shall also be reduced. No order as to costs.