Back
1976 Supreme(Cal) 8
High Court Of Calcutta
Bimal Chandra Basak
RAMCHANDRA PANDE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. Nil Of 1976
Decided On : 01/09/1976
P.K.SENGUPTA, S.K.ACHARYA, S.N.MUKHERJEE, SAMARJIT GUPTA
A levy imposed by the State Government for specific services rendered to pilgrims attending a religious mela is a fee and not a tax, and does not violate the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
GANGASAGAR MELA ORDINANCE, 1975 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - FREEDOM OF RELIGION - TAX OR FEE - VAGUENESS OF EXPRESSIONS - Held, the Ordinance is not ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Freedom of religion guaranteed by the said Article has not in any way been infringed by the said Ordinance. The levy imposed under Section 4 is a fee and not a tax.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Hindu, challenged the Ganga Sagar Mela Ordinance, 1975, and the notifications, notices, directions, rules, and orders issued thereunder. The petitioner alleged that the Ordinance interfered with the religious practices of Hindus by imposing a fee on pilgrims visiting the Ganga Sagar Mela and that the fee was a tax and not a fee.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Ordinance was not ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India and that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the said Article had not been infringed by the Ordinance. The Court also held that the levy imposed under Section 4 of the Ordinance was a fee and not a tax.
Issues: 1. Whether the Ganga Sagar Mela Ordinance, 1975, is ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the levy imposed under Section 4 of the Ordinance is a tax or a fee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Ordinance was not ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India because: a) The Ordinance was enacted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the pilgrims attending the Mela, which is a legitimate objective under Article 25(1). b) The Ordinance did not prohibit or restrict the practice of religion but only regulated it in a reasonable manner. c) The fee imposed under Section 4 of the Ordinance was a fee and not a tax, as it was levied for specific services rendered to the pilgrims and was not merged in the general revenue of the State. 2. The Court held that the levy imposed under Section 4 of the Ordinance was a fee and not a tax because: a) The levy was imposed in consideration of specific services rendered to the pilgrims, such as the provision of jetties, roads, latrines, pilgrim shades, water supply, electricity, sanitation facilities, and medical care. b) The amount collected from the levy was earmarked for the purpose of providing these services and was not merged in the general revenue of the State.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.
( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is praying for appropriate writs directed against The West Bengal Ordinance No. XXI of 1975 promulgated by the Governor of West Bengal and against the Notifications, Notices, Directions, Rules and/or Orders, if any pursuant thereto. The facts of the case as would appear from the petition lie in a short compass.
( 2 ) IN the petition it has been alleged that the petitioner is a citizen of India and that he is a Hindu by religion following religious festivals and occasions honestly. In Paush Sankranti every year the Ganga Sagar Mela is held in the sangam of Ganga and Sagar at the Sagar Island on the occasion of Ganga Sagar Mela every year, hereinafter referred to as the said Mela. The petitioner and other Hindus observing the said Mela visit the said Sagar Island in paush sankranti every year and also the Kapil Muni Temple and worship and perform Pujas, Darsan etc. with great religious belief and regard. It is alleged that the petitioner and such other visitors leave their places from different parts of India and reach the said Mela by launches, buses, rickshaws and also on foot and they spend a lot of money by such visit and stay at Ganga Sagar and return from such place after their worship. It is alleged that every visitor spends a sum of at least Rs. 50/ -. Nearly about five to six lakhs of people in the minimum visit the said Mela and make worship, pujas etc, with great regard and faith each year. None of such visitors were ever required to pay any fee to any officer of the State Government for visiting the said Mela. Even Sadhus, sanyasees, beggars and other persons of other organizations and pilgrims all visit the Ganga Sagar Mela for such purposes without any fee for such visits. The paush sankranti and Ganga Sagar Mela will be held on the 13th, 14th and 15th January, 1976 and a very large number of pilgrims will visit the Mela for such purpose from different parts of India incurring huge expenses.
( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is directed against the Ganga Sagar Mela Ordinance, 1975 made and promulgated by the Governor of West Bengal in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance ). Being aggrieved by the said Ordinance the petitioner applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ and also for ad interim order of injunction. The said petition was admitted and a Rule issued by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. on the 5th January, 1976. However, his Lordship did not grant any ad interim injunction but gave liberty to the petitioner to move for interim order with notice to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also to the Government Advocate without filing any fresh application in Court. The application for injunction was ultimately moved before me and on the 7th January, 1976 after hearing the learned Advocates, I refused the prayer for interim injunction. However, by consent of the parties, I gave directions for an early hearing of the Rule and fixed the main Rule for hearing on. the next day, that is, on the 8th January, 1976. On the 8th January, 1976 the main Rule came up before me during the course of which some "statement of facts" were filed to which I would refer to later.
( 4 ) BEFORE referring to the respective arguments of the learned Advocates it is necessary to set out the said Ordinance. "the GANGASAGAR MELA ordinance, 1975. Whereas it is expedient in the public interest to provide for the taking of measures with a view to safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of the pilgrims attending the Gangasagar Mela and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto; and WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly of the State of West Bengal is not in session and the Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action; the Go
