R.B.Jodhamal vs Panchayat Atholi and Anr.

Despite repeated calls noone has appeared for the respondents. This petition, therefore, has to be disposed of in absence of the respondents.

Among various other points, the one point on which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid great stress is that Dharat under the

village Panchayat Act and in terms of Rule 172 of the Rules framed under the Act, cannot be levied or imposed in respect of the goods which are

not consumed within the territory of the village Panchayat. The petitioner's case is that the goods, viz, the eatables which are meant for being

consumed by the Labour force employed by the petitioner within a demarcated forest area, which admittedly was outside the territory of the

Panchayat There is no dispute to the proposition of law that Dharat is a levy which can be imposed only in respect of those consumeable goods

which are meant for consumption ultimately within the Panchayat area because this levy is in the form of a terminal tax.

I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the act of imposing Dharat on the

consumeable goods of the petitioner was not legal and in accordance with the provisions of the Village Panchayat Act and the Rules framed

thereunder.

This petition is accordingly allowed and by a Writ of Prohibition, the respondents are restrained from recovering the Dharat in question from the

petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected CMP also stand disposed of.