1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1690 OF 1994. 1. Vijaykumar Bansilal Rathi, Age major, Occ.Business, Proprietor of Rathi Agro Agency Majalgaon, R/o Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 2. Kishanrao S/o Annasaheb Bahir, Age major, Occ.Business, and Proprietor of Shivaji Krushi Seva Kendra, R/o Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 3. Shahanik S/o Sheshrao Karad, Age major, Occ.Business, and Proprietor of Renuka Krushi Seva Kendra, R/o Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The Municipal Council, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. through it's Chief Officer. 2. The President, Municipal Council, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 3. Balaji Enterprises Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, through it's Proprietor Omprakash Dhondiram Bajaj. 2 4. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the collection of octroi on cotton seeds. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No.3 who is appointed as agent for collection of octroi is recovering the tax on cotton seeds at the rate which is more than the prescribed rates. 2. Vide amendment, the petitioners have also amended the petition so as to make a claim for recovery of amount which according to the petitioners collected in excess. 3 3. Mr.Choukidar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents on instructions states that in view of subsequent developments, the Municipal Council has stopped collection of the octroi. In that view of the matter, the main purpose of the petitioners no more survives. 4. However, Mr.Chavan, learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner regarding refund of the excess amount still subsist for adjudication. 5. The petitioners are both businessmen and are involved in the business of sale and purchase of pesticides and fertilizers. The grievance of the petitioners is that the alleged collection of octroi is more than the prescribed rates. Admittedly, interim relief which was granted earlier was immediately vacated and as such for a period of last more than 15 years, no ad-interim relief is operating. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not the ultimate consumers and are intermediators. The petitioners have not placed on record any 4 material to show that amount of octroi paid by them has not been passed on to the ultimate consumers. In that view of the matter and in the lack of such material being placed on record, the petitioners would not be entitled for the refund of the excess octroi allegedly paid by them. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp169094