Municipal Councils are not empowered to levy entry tax.

E. Padmanabhan, J.

1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 212. 1997 passed in W.P. No.12846 of 1997 on the file of this court.

2. This court ordered notice of motion on 22. 1998. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through their respective counsel.

3. Heard Mr.R. Krishnamurthi, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Patty B. Jaganathan for the first respondent and Mr.K.P.H. Thulasiraman, Special Government Pleader for the second respondent. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition, for convenience.

4. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P. No. 12846 of 1997 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, Executive Officer, Vailankanni Town Panchayat culminating in his office R.C. No.356/97/A2 dated 8. 1997, quash the same and forbear the first respondent from conducting the auction proposed to be held on 28. 1997 or any other future date to which it may be adjourned and from collecting any amount from the vehicles entering into Vailankanni in the form of toll-gate kist or entry fees.

5. The petitioner being the Procurator of Shrine Basilica of Our Lady of Health, Vailankanni raised objections with respect to the first respondents auction notification dated 8. 1997, where the first respondent Panchayat notified an auction of the right to collect entry fees from the motor vehicles, which enter Vailankanni town for the period from 29. 1997 to 29. 1998.

6. This Court is not concerned with respect to the terms and conditions of auction notification or with respect to the auction procedure adopted by the first respondent. On the other hand, what is challenged being that the first respondent Panchayat has no authority to levy entry tax or fee on vehicles, which enter Vailankanni Town Panchayat limits, such a levy is illegal, without authority of law and ultra vires the powers of the first respondent Panchayat.

.7. In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act do not confer power on the respondent Town Panchayat to levy tax in the form of toll-gate kist from the vehicles, which enter the first respondent Town Panchayat nor the Indian Tools Act 1852 empowers the respondents to levy toll nor there has been any notification by the second respondent State Government under the Tolls Act nor any fee or tax or kist could be collected from the vehicles which enter the limits of the first respondent Panchayat nor the levy of entry fee on the motor vehicles by the first respondent is authorised by law. Though very many other contentions were raised by the petitioner, it is not necessary to refer to the details set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

8. The first respondent filed a counter, contending that in terms of section 156 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and Section 270 B read with Section 270 D, the first respondent is entitled to levy and collect toll-gate kist from the motor vehicles, which enter its limits. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the Honourable Single Judge on the view that the petitioner is liable to contribute recurring of non-recurring contributions as may be fixed under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

9. We are unable to sustain the view taken by the Honble Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Mr.Patty B. Jaganathan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relied upon the two statutory provisions and sought to sustain the levy of toll-gate kist on vehicles which enter the first respondent Panchayat.

10. It is not in dispute that the first respondent Town Panchayat is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. It is also not in dispute that there neither been a notification by the second respondent State Government under the India