MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSATISH CHANDRA JAIN AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

A      MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
                            v.
           SATISH CHANDRA JAIN AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

                               NOVEMBER 15, 1995

B             [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.)

          Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961:

           Ss.164(2), 164(3)-Cattle Registration and Market·f~e-Lease for
C   recovery of-Lessee collecting fee but with-holding a part of contract
    amount-Recovery proceedings by Municipal Council against lessee-Lessee
    challenging collection of fee as invalid on ground that no servic s were
    rendered by Municipal Council at the place of cattle fail~Held, fee was
    validly imposed-Municipal Council provided necessa1y facilities at the place
    of cattle fair-Lessee clothed with auth01ity to collect tax and having actually
D   collected the fee, cannot withhold contracted money.

           The appellant-Municipal Council granted to the respondent a le.ase
    for a year for recovery of cattle registration fee and market fee in respect
    of the transactions made at the place of cattle fair. Since the appellant did
E   not deposit a part of the Contract-money, the Municipal Council initiated
    proceedings against him for recovery of the balance amount. The respon-
    dent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the proceedings
    on the ground that the fees sought to be collected from him being in the
    nature of tax was invalid as no services were rendered by the Municipal
    Council at the place of cattle fair; and that in the event of imposition of
F   cattle registration fee being held beyond the power of Municipal Council
    the market fee too required to be quashed as it was inextricably added up
    in the contracted amount. The High Court allowed the writ petition.
    Aggrieved, the Municipal Council filed the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
          HELD : 1. The respondent cannot resist the recovery proceedings on
    the pretext that no services were rendered or were deficient at the site
    where business of sale of cattle was transacted. The High Court seemingly
    overlooked the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette dated October 23,
H   1950 wherein the Municipal Council had justified enhancement of fees
                                         274
-                MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONlv. S.C.JAIN

    from 1-2 paise to a rupee because the Municipal Council found it difficult
                                                                               275

                                                                                      A
    to put up with the expenses of sanitation, lighting etc. at the place of cattle
    fair. It is otherwise a matter of common knowledge that where a cattle fair
    is held and business transacted, certain basic facilities are normally
    provided by the Municipal Council, such as sanitation, space for storage
    and sale of fodder, troughs for drinking water for the cattle, pegs and           B
    mongers to tie cattle, drinking water for human being visiting the area, as
    also eating places for them. Quid pro quo was, therefore, writ large with
    the imposition of fee. [276-H; 277-A-C; D]

          Dha11iram v.Ja11apada Sabha Ja11jgir, (1965) MP L.J. 408, referred to.

          2. The respondent, who was clothed with the authority of a tax
                                                                                      c
    collector and actually collected the fee, cannot be allowed to say that he
    had collected the fee wrongly and on that basis he would not pay the
    contracted money, since he had to reimburse himself by a wrong collection.
    The High Court overlooked an important aspect of the case as to the
    maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent.           D
                                                                      [277-F-G]
          3. The fee was validly imposed and sequally the portion of the fee
    representing market fee is automatically in order. [277-H; 278-A]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3360 of                       E
    1979 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.79 of the Madhya Pradesh
    High Court in Misc. P. No. 391 of 1972.

         P.N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg, D.P. Mohanty, (N.P) B.K. Satija and AK.               F
    Sanghi for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

    Civil Appeal No. 3360 of 1979 :
                                                                                      G
           A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, quashed on a writ
    petition, the bill and notice of demand, issued against the respondent under
    section 164 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, on the basis that the fees
    sought to be collected from the respondent fetched him no quid pro quo.

          The respondent herein was granted by auction a lease by the H
                                                                                      t-



    276                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   Municipal Council, Waraseoni for a year from l.4;1971 to 31.3.1972 for
    recovery of cattle registration fee and market fee, popularly known in that
    region as "Baithaki". The contracted money was Rs. 1,75,000. The respon-
    dent did not pay 'the whole and withheld a sum of Rs. 29,592.63. The
    Municipal Council was constrained to start recovery proceedings against
    the respondent under the provisions of the Act. A bill for the amount was
B   sent to the respondent under Section 164(2) and a demand notice under
    Section 164(3) was also issued against the respondent. The respondent
    seeking quashing of the bill and the demand notice approached the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution, which
    quashed the bill and the demand notice on the premise stated earlier.
c
           Two points were raised before the High Court; (i) that the fee
    imposed bore no correlation to the services rendered and being in the
    nature of tax was, therefore, invalid; and (ii) no lease could be granted for
    recovery of such fee when the fee itself was invalid. A question consequen-
    tial in nature was also raised that since the said contracted sum of Rs.
D
    1, 75,000 compositely related to cattle registration fee as well as market fee,
    the portion representing market fee could not be made out if imposition
    of cattle registration fee was held beyond the power of the Municipal
    Council. Sequally it was urged that the market fee too, needed to be
    quashed on account of its being inextricably added up in the contracted
E   amount. The High Court, seemingly relying upon a Full Bench decision, of
    that Court Dhaniram v. Janapada Sabha, Janjgir, (1965) MP L.J. 408, held
    cattle registration fee to be invalid because it was thought that the imposi-
    tion of such fee, independent as it was, on the price fetched for an animal,
    bore no correlation to the services rendered by Janapada Sabha, and,
    therefore, could not be described as 'fee'. In the instant case, the Municipal
F
    Council, did not specifically stated in its return as to what services it
    rendered to the sellers and buyers of animals and what was the purpose
    for which the fee was imposed. The return was general in terms. It was
    therefore, spelt out by the High Court that there was an implied admission
    that the fee collected was for purposes of general revenue.
G
          This view of the High Court, with due respect, cannot be sustained;
    more so at the instance of the respondent contractor. That respondent
    could not bemoan that no services were rendered or were deficient at the
    site where business of sale of catde was transacted. The High Court
H   seemingly overlooked the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette dated
             MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARASEONiv. S.C.JAIN                        277

October 23, 1950 wherein the notice issued itself the Municipal Council, A
Waraseoni had justified enhancement of fees from 1-2 paisa to a rupee
because the Municipal Council found it difficult to put up with the expen-
ses of sanitation, lighting, etc. at the place where cattle was sold and the
sale registered within the municipal limits. It is otherwise a matter of
common knowledge that where a cattle fair is held and business transacted,
                                                                                 B
certain basic facilities are normally provided by the Municipal Council. To
enumerate a few, it would provide sufficient space for storage and sale of
fodder, enough troughs for storage of drinking water for the cattle, pegs
and managers to tie cattle, provide drinking waters for human beings
visiting the area, as also eating places for them. Besides, it has to look after
sanitation of the place, as is natural for the cattle collected to be urinating   c
and dropping dung requiring immediate attention for removal, if not
altogether there and then, but at least for putting it in temporary storage
till removed altogether. These facilities are inherent in a cattle fair which
the Municipal Council is supposed to offer and maintain. Additionally, it
is worthy to note that here the cattle fair is a weekly affair; all the more D
requiring constant availability of these facilities. Quid pro quo was, there-
fore, writ large with the imposition of fee.

       Apart from what has been said above, it did not lie in the mouth of
 the respondent, having himself collected the fee, to say that no services
 were rendered. He is stealing the language of those persons who paid the         E
 fee and could have objected. Noticeably, no tax payer has come forward
 to challenge the fee in question. The respondent was himself clothed with
 the authority of a tax collector, for he had contracted to pay a fixed amount
 to the Municipal Council for a year, having bought and attained the right
·to collect tax. He cannot be allowed to say that he had collected the fee        F
 wrongly and on that basis he would not pay the contracted money, since
 he had to reimburse himself by a wrong collection. In this view of the
 matter, we think that the High Court overlooked an important aspect of
 the case as to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the
 respondent.           ·
                                                                                  G
       Thus, on either ground of attack, there was no merit in the writ
petition preferred by the respondent and equally he had no locus to
challenge the imposition of fee, which was otherwise validity imposed.
When imposition of registration of cattle fee is in order, the portion of the
fee representing market fee is automatically in order. The question of H
    278                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   splitting the two vanishes. In the view thus taken, this appeal is allowed,
    the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition
    filed by the appellant is dismissed, with costs.

    Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 1995:

B          The appellant herein, contracted with the Municipal Council,
    Waraseoni to pay a sum of Rs. 1,59,000 on account of cattle registration
    fee for the year 1972-73. Since he fell in arrears in the payment thereof, a
    suit for Rs. 1,11,431.56 was filed by the Municipal Council against the
    appellant being dues of fees on sale of cattle, including interest. The
    appellant contested the suit. All the issues, except one, were decided by
c   the Trial Court in favour of the appellant. The one decided against him
    was on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Dhaniram v. Janapada
    Sabha, Janjgir, (1965) M.P.L.J. 408. The suit was dismissed. The High
    Court on appeal at the instance of the Municipal Council reversed the Trial
    Court judgment and decreed the suit against the appellant with costs
D   throughout imposing future interests at the rate of 6% per annum from the
    date of the decree till realisation. Challenge to imposition of cattle
    registration fee has been negatived by us in the earlier decision made today
    in Civil Appeal No. 3360 of 1979. The basis of defence of the appellant
    thus stands knocked out. On the basis of the said ratio, there is no merit
    left in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, but without any order
E   as to costs.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.




                               •