( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri. Konanahalli is a resident of the town of Haveri, who carries on the business of sale and purchase of cardamom within the limits of the Town Municipal Council, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council ). He has, in this writ petition filed invoking articles 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution , challenged the Notification of the State Government Exhibit 'b' dated 9-2-1976, sanctioning levy of octroi on cardamom at one per cent ad valorem in respect of the municipal Council and the Notification Exhibit 'c' dated 6-5-1976 issued by the Municipal Council respondent-2, bringing the levy of octroi as sanctioned by the State Government into force with effect from 1-8-1976.

( 2 ) THE Municipal Council passed a resolution on 27-1-1973 pro posing to levy octroi on several goods. It. proposed to levy octroi at the rate of one per cent ad valorem on cardamom. The said resolution was notified inviting objections. Several objections were received to the said proposal which were considered by a sub-committee constituted by the Municipal Council for the said purpose. The sub-committee recommended that the rate of octroi for cardamom be reduced from one per cent to 0. 15 per cent. The Municipal Council accepted the said recommendation of the sub committee by its resolution dated 26th july, 1973. It forwarded to the State Government the notice inviting objections from the public of Haveri, the objections received from persons concerned and its own recommendation to reduce the octroi from 1 per cent to 0. 15 per cent so far as cardamom is concerned. The State Government, after considering the original proposal, the objections and the recommendation of the Municipal Council, accorded sanction for levy of octroi on cardamom, at 1 per cent ad valorem, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 96 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said sanction is contained in the notification Exhibit 'b' referred to above. It is after obtaining such sanction that the Notification as per Exhibit 'c' was issued by the Municipal council to the effect that levy of octroi as sanctioned by the State government will come into force with effect from 1-8-1976, in supersession of the old rates.

( 3 ) THE only contention urged by Shri. B. V. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the State Government had no competence to sanction levy of octroi at 1 per cent ad valorem contrary to the recommendation made by the Municipal Council. The argument of Shri. Deshpande is that the power of sanction vested in the State Government under S. 96 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to increase the rate of octroi proposed by the Municipal Council. Support for this argument was derived from the language of S. 96 of the Act which reads as follows :"96. Power to sanction, modify and impose conditions. The government may either refuse to sanction the resolution submitted under S. 95 or may return it to the municipal council for further consideration, or if no objection, or no objection which is in its opinion sufficient, was made to the proposed tax within one month from the publication of the said notice, may sanction the said resolution either: (a) without modification, or (b) subject, (i) to such modifications not involving an increase of the amount to be imposed, or. (ii) to such conditions as the application within the municipality to any purpose or purposes of this Act specified in such conditions, of the whole or any part of the proceeds of such tax, as it deems fit. It is clear from S. 96 of the Act that what comes for sanction before the State Government is the resolution submitted under S. 95 of the Act proposing imposition of tax. On receipt of such resolution, the State government may either refuse sanction sought for by the Municipal council or return it to the Municipal Council for further consideration or sanction the said 'resolution with or without mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document