JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---This petition is filed by the petitioners, Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture and others, for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 State of Maharashtra as well as Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation seeking to levy and recover from the petitioners octroi at an increased rate as per Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Octroi) Rules, 2001 for the period between 6th January, 2002 and 14th February, 2002 and between 17th February, 2002 and 7th May, 2002, as the same is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law.

2. Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), octroi can be levied by respondent No. 2-Corporation by framing Octroi Rules. Such Rules were framed by respondent No. 2 Corporation. They were sanctioned by the Government on November 29, 2001. It is also an admitted fact that the Government granted the sanction in November, 2001 and they were Gazetted on 6th December, 2001. They were brought into force from 6th January, 2002, i.e. on completion of one month from the date of publication in Gazette. It appears from the record as well as from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 31 of 2002 decided on 22nd January, 2003 reported in 2003(3) Bom.C.R. 760 (Citizens Forum for Scientific Development of Pimpri-Chinchwad v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, that stay against implementation of the Rules and seeking recovery of octroi was granted by the Government on 6th January, 2002 which remained operative upto 14th February, 2002. On 14th February, 2002 stay was vacated. Hence, from 15th February, 2002, recovery could be effected and was in fact effected. It is, however, on record that only two days recovery could be effected i.e. 15th and 16th February, 2002. Again, there was "oral" stay from "Mantralaya" and recovery could not be effected from 17th February, 2002 onwards. Finally, on 8th May, 2002, stay was vacated by the State Government and from 9th May, 2002, recovery could be effected.

3. In the P.I.L., a prayer was sought that the action of the State as well as respondent No. 2-Corporation of not effecting recovery for the intervening period i.e. 6th January, 2002 to 14th February, 2002 and 17th February, 2002 to 7th May, 2002 was illegal, unlawful and an appropriate direction by issuing a writ of mandamus was required to be issued to the respondent-authorities to effect recovery by issuing notices and calling upon the parties to pay the amount of octroi.

4. The Division Bench, upholding the said contention ordered that the respondent-authorities shall take appropriate proceedings to recover the said amount of octroi by taking appropriate steps.

5. The Division Bench observed : (2003(3) Bom.C.R. 760 at page 763-64):

"14. In our opinion, once the required procedure has been followed, the Rules were required to be brought into force. Once the sanction had been granted by the State Government, it had no power, authority or jurisdiction to suspend enforcement of the Rules or to grant any interim order. From the facts it is clear that at two stages the State directed the respondent-Corporation not to enforce new Rules and to collect octroi under the new Rules but continued to collect octroi under the old Rules only firstly during 6th January, 2002 to 14th February, 2002 and secondly, from 17th February, 2002 to 7th May, 2002.

15. So far as the first period is concerned, it was stated by the State that there were elections to the Corporations and under the code of conduct the Rules could not be implemented. No provision, however, was brought to our notice by the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to how code of conduct would prevent enforcement of rules which were framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Once the Rules were sanctioned by the State Government, a notification was issued and the t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document