Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1002
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JJ.
Coimbatore District Wholesale All Vegetables Merchants Association rep by its President, C.N. Palanisamy & Another
Versus
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner & Others
W.A. No. 2842 of 2012 & W.P. No. 33355 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012, 1, 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On: 03-06-2014
For the Appearing Parties:P.V.S. Giridhar, Sai, G. Rajesh, R. Yashod Varadhan, Senior Counsel Assisted by R. Sivakumar for Coimbatore Corporation, A. Srijayanthi, Special Govt. Pleader for State Government, T. Gowthaman, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation had the competence to levy fees on goods and vehicles brought into the market as per Section 379(2) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981.
Headnote:
Fee Collection - Public Markets - Section 379(2) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 379(2)(a), Section 379(2)(c) - The court analyzed the legal provisions of Section 379(2) of the Act, which empowers the Commissioner to levy fees for the use of, or for the right to, expose goods for sale in public markets, and to levy fees on vehicles or persons bringing goods for sale in such markets. The court found that the Corporation had the competence to levy such fees, and dismissed the writ petitions challenging the fee collection.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and the appellant Association filed writ petitions challenging the collection of fees on goods brought into the market, alleging double levy and unjust enrichment. The court analyzed the factual and legal submissions, finding that appropriate fees had been levied on goods and vehicles, and that the contractors had requested a revision of rates, which was duly considered and resolved by the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation had the power to levy fees on goods and vehicles brought into the market, and that the resolutions for revision of rates were passed after due consideration. The court also noted the delay and laches in challenging the fees, and the suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the competence of the Corporation to levy fees on goods and vehicles brought into the market, the validity of the resolutions for revision of rates, and the standing of the petitioners to challenge the fee collection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation had the competence to levy fees on goods and vehicles brought into the market as per Section 379(2) of the Act. The court also emphasized the delay and laches in challenging the fees, and the suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the fee collection, and imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner in W.P.No.33355/2013 for suppression of material facts.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.17755/2011 is the appellant and the appellant Association filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 3 from levying, imposing or collecting any fee or sum on the goods carried into the market in vehicles, or by animal-drawn carriages or persons, other than or in addition to the levy on the entry of such vehicles, animal-drawn carriages or persons. Similarly, Coimbatore District Wholesale All Vegetable Merchants Association has also filed W.P.No.17756 of 2011 praying for the very same relief and both the writ petitions, after contest was dismissed on 27.02.2012. The petitioner in W.P.No.17755/2011 alone has filed this writ appeal and the petitioner in W.P.No.17756/2011 did not file any appeal challenging the order dismissing the writ petition and therefore, the order insofar as they are concerned, becomes final.
2. One A.Abdul Hakeem has filed W.P.No.33355/2013 praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to Resolution No.226 dated 29.01.2010 as amended by Resolution No.242 dated 02.03.2010 and quash the same and forbear the respondents 1 and 3 from levying, imposing or collecting any fee or sum on the goods carried into the market in vehicles, or by animal-drawn carriages or persons, other than or in addition to the levy on the entry of such vehicles, animal-drawn carriages or persons.
3. Since the writ appeal as well as the writ petition pertain to the very same issue with regard to the levying, imposing or collecting any fee or sum on the goods carried into the market in vehicles, or by animal-drawn carriages or persons, both the cases are disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The appellant, in the affidavit, filed in support of W.P.No.17755/2011 stated among other things that in terms of Section 379(2) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act'], the Commissioner of the said Corporation may in any public market charge and levy and one or more of the following fees at such rates as the standing committee may determine as may appear to him proper or may farm out such fees on such terms and subject to such conditions as he may deem fit and the contract of collecting fees has been granted in favour of the third respondent and the third respondent apart from levying fee in respect of vehicles such as motor vehicles or animal drawn carriages which are bringing goods into the market, also illegally collecting additional charges on the goods carried in the said vehicle and it amounts to double levy.
5. The Resolution No.168 dated 28.12.2009, which was amended by Resolution No.242 dated 02.03.2010 is also in violation of the above said provision and the action of the third respondent in collecting fees on the vehicles as well as the goods carried in the said vehicles amounts to unjust enrichment and without authority of law and inspite of the said fact being brought to the knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2 by means of representations, they have not chosen to take cognizance and therefore, filed the writ petition. As already pointed out, the Coimbatore District Wholesale All Vegetable Merchants Association has also filed W.P.No.17756/2011 making a similar challenge.
6. The first respondent has filed a counter in W.P.No.17755/2011, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal, wherein it is contended that right from the inception of Corporation of Chennai, appropriate fee is being levied on the goods namely fruits and vegetables as well as the vehicles and even on persons who are bringing those goods and the rates so fixed were not regularly revised and under those circumstances, the contractors who have been awarded the contract to collect such rates represented for enhancement in the rates and it was considered by the Taxation and Finance Committee of the Corporation and the said Committee vide Resol
