1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5953/2010 M/S KANAK RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ..VS.. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.R. Vyas, advocate for petitioners Shri S.M. Puranik, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, under rule 46(A) of the Octroi Rules. The petitioner was charged with a penal duty for having imported the goods in the city limits without payment of Octroi. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed. Ultimately the petitioner applied before the Municipal Commissioner under section 46(A) of the Octroi Rules. The Municipal Commissioner, however, disposed of the application filed by the petitioner under rule 46(A) of the Rules on the ground that there was no reason to grant any relaxation in penal duty to the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 1.10.2010, it appears that the Municipal Commissioner did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under rule 46(A) of the Octroi Rules. It was observed by the authority 2 that at an earlier point of time, the petitioner had paid full Octroi on four vehicles, but evaded payment of Octroi in respect of 6 vehicles in this case. The authority held that the aforesaid facts clearly showed that the petitioner was aware that he was liable to pay the Octroi on six vehicles which were brought within the city limits. The authority did not believe the word of the petitioner that six vehicles were brought within the city limits without payment of octroi due to mistake of the driver. The authority held that since it was a clear case of octroi evasion, it was not proper to grant any relaxation in the penal duty in the facts of the case. It cannot be said that the Municipal Commissioner exercised the discretion under Rule 46(A) of the Octroi Rules in an unreasonable or fanciful manner. The fact that the petitioner would be required to execute his contracts with the corporation, on losses, if he is made liable to pay the penalty imposed on the petitioner, cannot be a case of “any genuine difficulty to any importer” for, if losses that may be occasioned to the importer on payment of penalty, is considered to be a genuine difficulty that genuine difficulty would arise in each and every case and a relaxation would be sought on that ground in every application which is filed under Rule 46(A) of the Octroi Rules. Since the order passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ 3 jurisdiction. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP