Cantonment Board, Dehradun Through Its Chief Executive Officer vs. Ajay Goyal
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Deepak Gupta, Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice
Stage:
Three Judges Bench Matter
Remarks:
Disposed off
Listed On:
31 Jan 2019
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2541/2006
CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAJRAJ SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH C.A. NO. 10724-10725/2011 C.A. NO. 3533/2016
ORDER
1. By order dated 19th January, 2011 a Division Bench of this Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of jurisdiction and authority of the Cantonment Board to impose and levy toll tax under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. It was also observed that correctness of the decision in Ramgarh Cantonment Board & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.1 requires reconsideration.
<span id="page-0-0"></span>1. (2008) 11 SCC 223
2. Having heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.10724-10725 of 2011 [Cantonment Board, Dehradun] we are of the view that in view of the enactment of Cantonment Act, 2006, which vide Section 67(e) thereof authorizes the Cantonment Board to levy "licence fee on entry of vehicles", the question referred has become academic. Following the enactment of Cantonment Act, 2006 the Cantonment Board would be authorized to impose the levy as per Section 67(e) of the Cantonment Act, 2006.
3. By virtue of the interim orders, the appellants – Cantonment Boards have levied and collected toll from users. Obviously, no accounts have been maintained and could have been maintained. Thus, even if we are to hold the question referred against the Cantonment Boards, the question of refund will not arise. We, therefore, decline to go into the said question on the ground that the same has been rendered academic by the enactment of the Cantonment Act, 2006. No orders for refund of the levy collected ought to be made. We order accordingly.
4. All appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
....................,CJI. (RANJAN GOGOI)
...................,J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)
...................,J. (SANJIV KHANNA)
NEW DELHI JANUARY 31, 2019 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.1 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2541/2006
CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAJRAJ SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NO. 3533/2016 (III-A)
C.A. NO. 10724-10725/2011 (X)
Date : 31-01-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For parties:
CA 2541/2006 Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Ms. Smriti Kumari, Adv.
- CA No.10724-725/11 Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv.
- CA No.3533/16 Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR
Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv. for M/s M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. Punya Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Ms. Anusha Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Consequently all pending applications including the application for impleadment shall stand disposed of.
[VINOD LAKHINA] | [ANAND PRAKASH] |
---|---|
AR-cum-PS | BRANCH OFFICER |
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]