( 1 ) WE have heard Sri W. H. Khan, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and Sri A. K. Goel, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Zila Panchayat and Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Gautam Budh Nagar.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the holder of mining license granted by the State of U. P. under the provisions of Minor Minerals (Concession ) Rules, 1963, vide mining lease dated 2/03/1994 for the extraction and collection of the same from the estate of Village Chak Basantpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA), U. P. Petitioner No. 2 is operator of trucks who carries sands extracted by writ petitioner No. 1. It is asserted in the petition that the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA), U. P. vide letter No. 213 dated 29th Sept. 2000 issued a notification dated 20/03/1999 whereby toll tax has been imposed by the said authority on carrying sands. On 1/04/1999 the Special Secretary, Industrial Development Department, U. P. wrote a letter to the District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar that the Zila Panchayat has no jurisdiction to frame bye-laws in respect of minerals covered by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as well as U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Vide order dated 25th Sept. 2000 respondents Nos. 4 and 5 granted license to respondent No. 7 on his application dated 14th Sept. 2000. When the writ petitioner came to known on 28th Sept. 2000 that respondent No. 7 was claiming himself to be licensee on the strength of licence granted by Zila Panchayat authorities, Gautam Budh Nagar to realise toll tax @ Rs. 30. 00 per truck, they immediately on the same day made a protest in writing to respondent No. 3, namely, the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. On 12th Oct. 2000 the writ petitioners made an inquiry from the office of the District Magistrate about the fate of his protest/application dated 28th Sept. 2000. The District Magistrate informed the writ petitioners that on 12th Oct. 2000 the former has written two letters to the Secretary, U. P. Government as well as respondent No. 4 stating that apparently, no such toll tax can be realised by the Zila Panchayat in respect of the minerals covered by the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1993 and further seeking guidance from the State Government, reply whereof is awaited.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of Mr. W. H. Khan, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners that there is no authority or jurisdiction on the part of the Zila Panchayat to issue such notification or to collect such toll tax as has been done in the instant case. He has also referred to Sections 144 and 145 of Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 19 I (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and has submitted that toll for the use of bridges constructed and maintained by the Zila Panchayat can only be imposed by Zila Panchayat. He has further submitted that in the instant case, bridge in question was constructed by Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P. and under such circumstances, the Zila Panchayat has no jurisdiction or authority to levy any toll tax.

( 4 ) MR. A. K. Goel appearing for Zila Panchayat and Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat (respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively) has not disputed the fact that the bridge/road in question has been constructed by the Irrigation Department and not by the Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has further submitted that even though the bridge/road has been constructed and maintained by the Irrigation Department, Zila Panchayat has under the relevant provisions of the statute power to impose tax on the minerals in question taken over through the road. He has referred to List C of sub-section (2) of Section 239 and Section 145 (b) of the Act. 4 He further submits that tax is not imposed for the use of bridge but for transportation of sands over the public road.

( 5 ) WE have considered the submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document