Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 35 (MEG)

Kenendro N. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2015-03-26

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH, UMA NATH SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. This petition has been filed with following prayers namely, (i) for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ/Writs and Order/Orders, Direction/Directions in order to allow the petitioner to collect fee on the entry of commercial vehicles plying through 7th Mile, Wageasi, North Garo Hills, Meghalaya, as per the order dated 26-06-2014, with extension of period of lease and (ii) for direction to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to refrain from disturbing the petitioner in collection of prescribed fee on entry of commercial vehicles plying without a valid license through 7th Mile, Wageasi, North Garo Hills, Meghalaya. 2. It appears from the pleadings that respondent No.4, Secretary Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, vide Order No.7, dated 26-06-2014 settled a lease in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 1,50,000/- for collection of prescribed fee for entry of commercial vehicles plying through 7th Mile, Wageasi, without a valid license in exercise of powers conferred under para 8 and 9 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Garo Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation, 1957. Para 8 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides for powers to assess and collect land revenue and to impose taxes whereas para 9 thereof deals with licenses or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner made a categorical statement that even after grant of lease, due to interference by official respondents, the petitioner has not set up a toll collection gate or received any fee from the vehicles plying through the route in question. It is also his statement that now the petitioner is only interested in the refund of lease amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondent, namely, Secretary, Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. 4. Despite having entered appearance in the matter, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not represented today. There is a circulation of letter for adjournment, on the ground that learned counsel, due to some personal problem is not available. But we cannot ignore the fact that the State respondents even after having been granted opportunity have not filed their affidavits. 4. Despite having entered appearance in the matter, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not represented today. There is a circulation of letter for adjournment, on the ground that learned counsel, due to some personal problem is not available. But we cannot ignore the fact that the State respondents even after having been granted opportunity have not filed their affidavits. Moreover, it appears that unless there is an element of quid pro quo in respect of trading of the items vide schedule 1 and 2 of the Regulation, the lessee or for that matter the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council shall not be within their competence, to impose any impost in the name of fee and collect it. Prima facie, we do not find anything on record to suggest that the element of quid pro quo is present in support of impost by granting lease for collection. However, there is a vehement opposition from the side of the State Government against imposition or collection of fee under para 8 and 9 of the Sixth Schedule read with 1957 Regulation as aforesaid. But that notwithstanding, since learned counsel for the petitioner is only interested in getting the refund of lease amount and does not want to press the writ petition, we dismiss the same with directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at present prevailing bank rate on fixed deposit within a period of one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order, for, on account of interference by official respondents probably on the legal ground that Garo Hills Autonomous Council cannot collect the fee itself or get it collected by grant of lease in respect thereof in favour of any agency under para 8 and 9 of the Sixth Schedule read with 1957 Regulations, he was forced not to start the fee collection gate. 5. The writ petition is thus dismissed as withdrawn with directions and observations as hereinabove.