1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2008 Romel Ceramics .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Aditya Chitale for petitioner Ms.Priti Purandare for Corporation CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st April 2008 P.C. . By this petition the petitioner, a partnership firm is aggrieved by the "Stop Delivery Memo" dated 27th December 2007 which has 2 been issued by the respondent Corporation with regard to some consignment which has been brought within the Municipal Limits for alleged consumption, use and sale. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is in the business of trading in different varieties of tiles. Petitioner does not carry on any manufacturing activities but purchases the tiles from various manufacturers and supplies them to the retailers. There are godowns in Mumbai and Thane Districts where the tiles imported are stored. There are also local purchases which are made by the petitioner. 3. In para 3 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner imports into the municipal limits, tiles which are for the purpose of storage and ultimate sale to its customers. At the time of import the petitioner pays requisite octroi duty at the entry points at various check 3 Nakas across Mumbai. Apart from importing, petitioner purchases tiles locally and it is the case of petitioner that when the purchases are made locally, there is no question of paying any octroi duty. It is stated by the petitioner that some local purchases were made by the petitioner and details of the same are set out in the petition. However, the petitioner was prevented from delivering certain goods which have been purchased locally on the ground that the goods have been cleared by the concerned persons without complying with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965. It is in such circumstances that the "Stop Delivery Memo" was issued. 4. The case of petitioner is that the consignment/goods have been purchased long time back. They are two or three years old and have been lying in the godown because they were defective or had gone out of fashion. There are 4 other goods which have been imported during the calender year 2007. The petitioner informed the respondents that it will locate purchase invoices and receipts of octroi duty paid and other documents in respect of this consignment and petitioner’s case is that it satisfied the Authorities with regard to payment of octroi in respect of tiles worth Rs.81,83,915/-. 5. It is in such circumstances that a grievance is made that the Stop Delivery Memo has been, instead of being withdrawn, pursued further and now when all documents with regard to payment of octroi duty have been produced, the goods which are detained, should be released straight away. 6. Petitioner has invited my attention to Rules 15 and 16 of the Octroi Rules and it is contended that the power to examine Articles of Import at the time of Import and subsequent 5 thereto would not take within its purview the power to issue such Stop Delivery Memo or in any event if the same is to be issued, it should be issued only after the principles of natural justice have been followed. 7. Ms.Purandare, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation refers to the affidavit in reply filed and submits that the petitioner had contended all through out that they have paid octroi Duty and they should be granted some time to produce relevant documents. The details of the documents furnished and the consignment to which they pertain are set out in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit in reply and it is contended that the scrutiny has revealed that the documents proving payment of octroi do not tally with the goods covered by Stop Delivery Memo dated 27th December 2007. 8. After the matter was argued for some 6 time, I suggested to Mr.Chitale appearing for petitioner and Ms.Purandare appearing for respondents as to whether a responsible officer of the Corporation could go into this issue and decide the same after hearing the petitioner. Both Ms.Purandare and Mr.Chitale agreed to this course of action. Accordingly, I called upon Ms.Purandare to inform me as to who is the concerned official who would decide the issue and pass a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner. She informs me that Joint Municipal Commissioner (Assessment and Collection) of the Municipal Corporation would hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order with regard to the controversy and subject matter of this petition. In other words, the authority concerned viz., Joint Municipal Commissioner (JMC for short) should decide as to whether the Corporation had the authority and power to issue Stop Delivery Memo and whether if it had such authority, then, whether the memo should be withdrawn on the cause 7 shown or it is necessary to proceed further and take punitive action as well. 9. Accordingly it is directed that the JMC shall hear the petitioner and allow it to produce all such documents and materials with regard to subject consignment and pass a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner. The order should be passed without being influenced in any manner by the contents of the affidavit filed before this court. The said JMC would decide the issue of maintainability of the proceedings, power of Corporation to issue Stop Delivery Memo and even if there was such power as to whether the action is justified or not and on each of these aspects, give cogent and satisfactory reasons for the ultimate conclusion. 10. Petitioner to appear before JMC on 23rd April 2008. J.M.C. to decide the matter within 8 the time stipulated above. No extension under any circumstances would be granted as the matter is pending from November/December 2007. It is clarified that this Court has not opined on any of the aspects noted above and all contentions of both sides on maintainability of the proceedings so also on merits are kept open. Petition disposed of. No costs. 11. In view of disposal of the petition, chamber summons No.102 of 2008 does not survive and the same is dismissed as such. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)