AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. The right of the petitioner to collect pilgrim tax is a subject matter of the present petition.
3. The petitioner was permitted to collect pilgrim tax pursuant to order dated 31.07.2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per pilgrim above the age of 12 years. The same was pursuant to the Resolution of the Standing Committee â€
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar dated 14.07.2006. From 31.07.2006. The petitioner started imposing pilgrim tax at the rate of Rs. 2 per head.
4. Under the impugned order, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar directed the petitioner to stop collecting the pilgrim tax as
per the Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 14.07.2016. The petitioner has assailed the said order by filing the present petition.
5. Mr. Mantri, learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that after following due procedure of law the petitioner is permitted to levy
the pilgrim tax, and is collecting the pilgrim tax since 31.07.2006. The Resolution was passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Newasa on 29.06.2006,
permitting Grampanchayat Shanishingnapur to place the matter before the Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar in respect of levying the
pilgrim tax. The Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar on 14.07.2006 passed Resolution No. 589, thereby resolving to grant permission to
the petitioner to levy pilgrim tax at the rate of Rs. 2.50 on every pilgrim above the age of 12 years. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Ahmednagar issued an order dated 31.07.2006 permitting the petitioner to levy and collect pilgrim tax. According to the learned Advocate,
there was not a single complaint against the petitioner in collecting the pilgrim tax. Though, the petitioner was permitted to collect pilgrim tax at the
rate of Rs. 2.50, the petitioner imposed pilgrim tax at the rate of Rs. 2 per head only. The petitioner has not violated any conditions imposed in the
order permitting the petitioner to levy and collect pilgrim tax. The petitioner has not received any notice in regard to violation of the conditions imposed
by respondent no. 2 in collecting pilgrim tax. The petitioner kept the accounts of pilgrim tax collected and audit is done every year in respect of the
same. Every year during the time of Yatra and Utsavs near about 7 to 8 lacs pilgrims visit devasthan namely Shanishingnapur, and at that time
petitioner is not collecting any pilgrim tax from the pilgrims. The petitioner has to take every measures to maintain / manage water supply, cleanliness,
sanitation, electricity and look after health problems of all those who visit the devasthan Shanishingnapur, more particularly, on the occasion of
Shaniamawasya, Gudipadwa, Shanijayanti. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner has a right to collect the pilgrim tax as per Rule 36 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to 'RulesÂ1960'). The word 'Pilgrim' cannot be given a restricted
meaning. A person who visits holy shrine is a pilgrim. Even proviso to Rule 36 of the Rules  1960, permits collection of pilgrim tax for the whole
year, and consciously decision has been taken by the respondent permitting the petitioner to collect pilgrim tax for the whole year.
6. The learned Advocate further submits that respondent nos. 2 to 4 did not have authority to direct the petitioner not to collect the pilgrimage tax.
The said power vests only with the State Government under Section 124 (6) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to
'Act  1958). He further submits that respondent nos. 2 to 4 had produced forged Resolution No. 15, action deserves to be taken against them. The
learned Advocate further submits that initially when the petitioner was permitted to collect the pilgrimage tax, the same was challenged by some of the
persons before this Court by filing writ petition bearing no. 6050 of 2006. The writ petition was withdrawn on the ground that respondent no. 5 would
resort to remedy available under Sub Sections 5 and 6 of Section 124 of the Act  1958. Respondent no. 5 did not avail the said remedy. In the said
writ petition, affidavit was filed by the Gramsevak thereby substantiating the due adherence to the procedure while imposing the pilgrimage tax.
7. Mr. Shelke, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the copy of the Resolution No. 15 produced by respondent nos. 2 to 4 along
with the affidavit was incomplete. The concerned Clerk had copied the incomplete Resolution. Enquiry is also initiated against him. Warning is also
issued to him. There is no intentional act on the part of respondent nos. 2 to 4 in producing the copy of the Resolution No.Â
15. The correct copy  of the Resolution No.
15 is also produced. The learned Advocate submits that the Panchayat Samiti Newasa passed Resolution No. 6 in its meeting dated
21.06.2006 thereby authorising the Grampanchayat / petitioner to levy pilgrimage tax during pilgrimage only. The Standing Committee approved the
said Resolution and permitted the Grampanchayat to levy pilgrim tax. The said tax was to be levied during the period of pilgrimage only. As far as the
deity Shani is concerned, there is a pilgrimage on the occasion of Shani Amawasya and Shani Jayanti which is once in a year. The Grampanchayat /
petitioner was authorised to collect pilgrim tax on these occasions only. However, the petitioner started collecting pilgrim tax every day throughout the
year which is not contemplated. There were complaints regarding these illegal collection of the pilgrim tax by the Grampanchayat. Though the tax was
collected, no facilities were made available to the pilgrims. In view of this, the Grampanchayat was asked to stop the collection of pilgrim tax. The
petitioner has an alternate remedy available.
8. Mr. Sapkal, learned Advocate for respondent no. 5 submits that the petitioner has alternate remedy under Section 124 of the Act  1958. The
petitioner ought to avail the said remedy. The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner is not authorised to levy pilgrim tax throughout the year. It
is only during the period of pilgrimage the petitioner is authorised to levy pilgrim tax as per Rule 36 of the Rules  1960. The petitioner has failed to
provide the necessary facilities. The Standing Committee has rightly considered the said aspect and has passed the Resolution and the orders
impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner has no authority to charge pilgrim tax per day per person throughout the year.
9. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.
10. The Grampanchayat under Section 124 (1) (iii) of the Act â€" 1958, is authorised to levy and impose pilgrim tax subject to the minimum and
maximum rates which may be fixed by the State Government and in such manner and subject to such exemptions as may be prescribed. Section 124
of the Act â€" 1958, thus empowers the Grampanchayat to
levy pilgrim tax subject to the minimum and maximum rates that may be prescribed.
11. The Rules â€" 1960, lays down the procedure to be adhered to before imposing and levy of tax. The respondents have not disputed that the
petitioner had followed the procedure when initially the Standing Committee passed the Resolution permitting the petitioner to impose the pilgrim tax.
12. It is averred by the petitioner and not disputed by the respondents that in the monthly meeting dated 11.04.2006, Resolution No. 5/1 was passed
by the Grampanchayat for levying the pilgrim tax. The public notice was given by the Grampanchayat of its intention to levy the pilgrim tax. The same
was by beat of drum also. The Resolution was passed even by the Gramsabha and the Grampanchayat on 19.06.2006. The Standing Committee
passed a Resolution No. 589 in its meeting dated 14.07.2006 granting sanction to the petitioner to levy pilgrim tax. The Grampanchayat again passed a
Resolution on 17.07.2006 reducing the pilgrim tax to Rs. 2 per person. Rule 3 of the Rules  1960 appears to have been adhered too.
13. The gravamen of the respondents contention appears to be that the petitioner is authorised to charge pilgrim tax only during the period of
pilgrimage and not for the whole year. According to the petitioner, it has been permitted to impose and levy pilgrim tax per person throughout the year
and not restricted to a particular date.
14. Rule 36 of the Rules  1960 defines the word “Pilgrimâ€. “Pilgrim†means a person visiting the village during such period as may be
fixed as a period of pilgrimage by a Panchayat with the previous approval of the Standing Committee but does not include a person so entering who is
under the age of three years or a resident of the village or a servant of the Government or of a local authority deputed for duty at the place of
pilgrimage. The word “Pilgrim†has been defined under the Rules  1960, as such, it is not necessary to take external aid for interpreting the term
'pilgrim'. The Rules â€" 1960, clarify that the term 'Pilgrim' means a person visiting the village during such period as may be fixed as a period of
pilgrimage by a Panchayat with the previous approval of the Standing Committee. The period of pilgrimage fixed has to be approved by the Standing
Committee. In the present case, we do not find a particular period or the particular days fixed as the day / days of pilgrimage. Resolution No. 589
passed by the Standing Committee reads thus Â
vgenuxj ftYgk ifj""kn LFkk;h lferh fn- 14@7@06 jksth >kysY;k lHksrhy eatwj Bjkokph dkekiqjrh uDdy
Bjko dz- 589%& xzkeiapk;r f'kax.kkiwj rk- usoklk ;kauk Jh {ks= 'kfu f'kax.kkiqjP;k dk;Z{ks=kr n'kZuklkBh ;.akk&;k Hkkfodkaoj eqcbZ xzkeiapk;r
vf/kfude 1958 ps dye 124 ¼3½ o egkjk""Bª xzkeiapk;r dj o Qh ¼'kqYd½ fu;e 1960 Hkkx& 4 fu;e 36 rs 40 vUo;s izrh fnu] njMksbZ deky :- 2-
50 ¼ nksu :i;s iUukl iSls ek+=½ izek.ks xzkeiapk;r f'kax.kkiwj ;kauk ;k=sd: ofjy dj vkdkj.khlkBh ijokuxh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs-
Lkqpd %& Jh- xokjs ckthjko guqearjko vuqeksnd%& lkS- vkSrkMs flekrkbZ fufrujko Bjko lokZuwers eatwj
lfpo o
mieq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ¼lk-½
ftYgk ifj""kn] vgenuxj
Reading the Resolution No. 589, it transpires that the Standing Committee granted sanction to the petitioner to levy pilgrim tax at the Rate of Rs. 2.50
per day per person. Pursuant to the said Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 14.07.2006, the Chief Executive Officer on 31.07.2006 permitted
the petitioner to levy pilgrim tax every day.
15. It is pertinent to note that in the Resolution No. 589 of the Standing Committee dated 14.07.2006 and in the order of the Chief Executive Officer
dated 31.07.2006, the period of pilgrimage was not fixed. On the contrary the order states that the petitioner is permitted to levy pilgrim tax at the rate
of Rs. 2.50 per day per person.
16. Proviso to Rule 36 of the Rules â€" 1960, specifies that nothing in Rule 36 shall be deemed to prevent any Panchayat from levying with the
previous approval of the Standing Committee the tax under this part for the whole year. Proviso to Rule 36 of the Rules  1960, as such, permits the
Panchayat with the previous approval of the Standing Committee to levy pilgrim tax for the whole year. The general rule in construing the Provision
containing a Proviso is to construe them together without making either of them redundant or otiose. The natural presumption is that, but for the
Proviso the enacting part of the rule would have included subject matter of the Proviso. The Rule 36 of the Rules â€" 1960, shall be interpreted in a
manner that would make its exception carved out by the Proviso necessary. The construction which would make the Proviso redundant shall have to
be avoided.
17. Reading Rule 36 of the Rules  1960 with its proviso in entirety, it is clear that there is no embargo on the right of the Panchayat to levy pilgrim
tax for the whole year. The standing Committee under its Resolution No. 589 dated 14.07.2006 permitted the Grampanchayat to levy the pilgrim tax
per day per person without restricting it for a particular period. The levy of pilgrim tax throughout the year by the petitioner was with the previous
approval of the Standing Committee and was in consonance with Rule 36 of the Rules  1960 read along with its proviso.
18. If in case the respondents have any apprehension or are in receipt of complaint that the fee or tax levied by Panchayat is against the interest of
the general public, then they ought to approach the State Government, and it is the State Government that is empowered to suspend the levy of such
pilgrim tax. The petitioner is levying the pilgrim tax within the maximum limit prescribed under Rule 37 of the Rules  1960. If some facilities are not
provided by the petitioner, then it is for the respondents â€" authorities to specify and direct the petitioner to take corrective measures. It also does not
transpire from the affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioner has at any point of time charged tax more than the maximum. On the contrary,
it is said that the petitioner is charging the tax at Rs. 2 per person per day and that too from a person above 12 years of age and has not charged any
tax to the person below 12 years of age.
19. In the light of above, the Resolution passed by the Standing Committee and the impugned order of the Chief Executive Officer cannot be
sustained and are set aside.
20. In case respondents 2 to 5 are aggrieved by the act of the petitioner in levying pilgrim tax per day, they may approach the State Government
under Section 124 (6) of the Act  1958 on the grounds as specified under the said provision. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount kept in
the the separate account as per direction of the Court under order dated 24.08.2016.
21. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and Rule is made absolute in above terms. In view of disposal of the writ petition civil application also
stands disposed of. No costs.