Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The above contention is sought to be rebutted by the State with reference to Article 243H of the Constitution dealing with the power of the State to authorise a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees to the extent as specified therein as well as the power under Article 243X dealing with similar power of the State to authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees as mentioned therein. The version of the Petitioners is that, such power has to be exercised by the State "by law" i.e. by legislating a proper Enactment which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. The State further contends that in respect of the Panchayats, Section 77 of the Act, 1993 authorises the Panchayats to realise "other taxes". Section 77(1) deals with the 'Obligatory tax' as dealt with under Schedule No.I, like property tax, whereas Section 77(2) is in respect of 'Optional taxes' as deals with under Schedule No.II. It is also pointed out that as per Annexure-P/1 in WPC No.2092/2012; it has been made clear that Panchayat is at liberty to realise one time permit fee / renewal fee / compounding fee. What is sought to be realised is only a fee ( 'kqYd) and not a tax (dj). It is further pointed out that it is for the Municipality / Panchayat to ensure proper check and balance in respect of the erection of mobile towers and to ascertain the infringement of the statutory provisions / conditions, if any, by deploying sufficient number of staff and incurring much expenses in this regard, which necessitates satisfaction of the one time permit fee and yearly renewal fee, the adequacy of which cannot be questioned by the Petitioners. Reference is also made to the enabling provisions by way of Section 132 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Municipalities Act') - Power of State Government to grant exemption from taxes. Sections 355 - Power to make rules and Section 356 - General provisions regarding rules. Similar provisions, as contained in Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Municipal Corporation Act'), Section 317A - Laying railways, tramways or electrical, telephone poles and Section 433

39. There is no dispute to the contention of the petitioners that judgment has to be read as a whole and it cannot be read as a statute, in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in AP Asmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited and Another vs. Lafarge India Private Limited (2013) 15 SCC 414 {paragraphs 32 and 34}, Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited and Another vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Others (2010) 5 SCC 388 {paragraph 31} and Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 {paragraph 18}. There is also no dispute to the proposition that a regulation / rule has to be within the framework of the Act, as held by the Apex Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and Another (2003) 3 SCC 321 {paragraph 10}. Sub-Section (3) of Section 317A of the Municipal Corporation Act and sub-Section (3) of Section 355 of the Municipalities Act stipulate that nothing in the said provisions will bar the situations where the Act, 1885 are applicable and it is only in respect of the other aspects that the rule making power is conferred upon the State, as given under Section 433 of the Municipal Corporation Act and Section 356 of the Municipalities Act. As mentioned already, the Act, 1885 does not deal with any right of the Central Government / Telegraph Authority or the Licensees under Section 4 of the Act, 1885 to erect mobile towers in a 'private property'; except in respect of "telegraph" under Section 3(1AA), "telegraph line"