IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9504 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- VINUBHAI NARSINHBHAI SOLANKI C/O. SOLANKI BROTHERS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.N.D.Nanavati, Senior Advocate, with MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner Nos. 1-4 Mr.Kamal Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, with Mr.M.K. Dagli, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for Respondent No. 1 MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 22/10/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Today, when the matter was called out, I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State. On behalf of the State, an order, passed by the Administrator of the Nagarpalika, is placed on record, being Administrative Resolution No.26 of 2002, by which it has been decided to postpone the recovery of octroi, as per the grounds mentioned in the said Resolution. The said Resolution is kept on record. In view of this, now, it is clear that the Corporation cannot recover any amount towards octroi at present, in view of the Resolution of the State Government. The main issue in the petition has accordingly become infructuous. During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, by interim order, the petitioners were asked to pay octroi without prejudice to their rights and contentions and it is also ordered that a separate account be maintained by the Corporation in connection with the receipt of such octroi amount so far as the refund of the amount is concerned. Mr.Lakhani, appearing for the Corporation, has fairly stated that the Corporation will start the process for refunding the amount in question to the concerned trader / person, from whom octroi was collected during the intervening period. He has stated that the refund process will start within a period of one week from today and the amount will be paid to the concerned person moment such demand is made on behalf of such person. It is needless to say that at the time of refunding the amount, the Corporation will also make proper verification so that the amount can go back to the right person. Mr.Nanavati, who is appearing for the petitioners, has also fairly submitted that on receipt of such amount, the concerned person / trader will pay back the amount to the concerned person in case the goods in question are sold to such person and for that purpose, the petitioners are even willing to give public advertisement in connection with the aforesaid aspect. Mr.Lakhani, who is appearing for the Corporation, has stated that since the Corporation is deprived of the octroi income, it will be difficult for the Corporation to meet with its routine expenditure as well as the expenditure, which is required to be incurred towards public utility services. For that purpose, it is submitted that the Corporation may be permitted to make representation to the State Government for giving grant for the intervening period so that the Corporation can meet with its financial difficulty. It is open for the Corporation to make appropriate representation to the State Government in this behalf, requesting the Government to give suitable grant in lieu of octroi, which the Municipality was getting previously. If any such application is made by the Corporation, the State may decide the same in accordance with law and expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such representation. In view of the aforesaid position, now, nothing further is required to be done in this matter and in view of what is stated above, the petition has become infructuous. Hence, it is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated with no order as to costs. 22nd October, 2002 ( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) *** (apj)