Hon'ble MISHRA, J.—The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2000 (Act No. 17 of 2000) (hereinafter referred as the Amendment and Validation Act) amending the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and validating the recovery of octroi as per Section 3 of the Amendment and Validation Act.

2. The facts in short are that the petitioners earlier had preferred a writ petition out of which, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 101/95 arose. The same was decided by the judgment dated 2.4.1998 alongwith other matters. In the previous writ petition, questions were raised that whether it is the sale simplicitor which attracts the levy of octroi or the octroi becomes leviable when sale is for the purpose of consumption or use, competence of the State to levy octroi merely on sale and if the goods are brought within the limits of the Municipality to be detained temporarily for some period and subsequently re-exported outside the limit, without consumption or use the octroi realised on these goods become liable to be refunded or not. The decision was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. This court observed while considering the provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 that the Rules only help in the working of the Act. They deal with the procedure only. If the Act provides that octroi can be levied on goods brought on sale to be followed by consumption or use, then the Rules will not make the trader helpless in getting the refund where the goods have not been consumed or used within the limit of that Municipality. Rules are only an aid in the working of the Act. Non-compliance or omission to comply with the provisions of the Rules which is only procedural, will not take away the legal right of refund of octroi which was not leviable as the goods have been re-exported without consumption or use. The object and scheme behind these rules is to identify and quantify the goods re-exported outside the municipal limits without use or consumption. These rules have to be read and applied harmoniously in such a way that they do not come in conflict and are not inconsistent with the object of the Act. Rules cannot defeat the provisions of the Act. If the rule is to be given a very strict interpretation, that will not be conducive in the free trade and commerce. The burden lies upon the petitioners to establish that the goods brought in have been re-exported without consumption or sale. Municipal Boards were directed to enter into exercise whether the goods have been re-exported without consumption or sale or use within its area. Thereafter the State Government has enacted the Validation Act inserting Section 130A after existing Section 130. Section 3 has also been enacted validating the octroi levy charged before commencement of the Validation Act and any action taken or thing done before such commencement. Thus, Section 130A has been inserted with retrospective effect.

3. The validity of the Act No./ 17 of 2000 of the Amendment and Validation Act has been assailed by way of filing the instant writ petition contending that recovery made upto 31.1.1994 of a sum of Rs. 4,66,596/- which was ordered to be refunded in previous writ petition, SLP against which was dismissed by the Apex Court, ought to have been refunded by the Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that the validation Act is violative of Articles 14, 21, 301 of the Constitution of India. Contempt petitions were also filed which were disposed of as having become infructuous due to aforesaid enactment. Blanket power has been used so as to get rid of the order passed by the Court.

4. In the return filed by the respondent No. 1, though it has been styled as reply on behalf of respondents, it is contended that the Validation Act is a valid piece of legislation. Lack of provision was the main reason for previou