Writ Petition No.5223 of 2013

7th October, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Shri V.M. VAGHELA
Respondent Counsel: Shri C.S. KAPTAN, Shri S.B. AHIRKAR

Cases Cited:
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, 2012 (1) BCR 526 [Para 17,26]
Udaysingh s/o Sardarsingh Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2007(2) ALL MR 36 =2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 17 [Para 17,26]
Siemens Engineering Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1976 AIR 1785 [Para 17,26]
Hari Pandurang Bhave Vs. Sonba Kondiba Bankar & Ors., 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 613 [Para 18,26]

JUDGMENT

C. V. BHADANG, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is coming with the following material prayers :

[a] Admit this petition and rule be issued and entire papers and proceedings of the show cause notice dated 24.09.2012 annexed and marked Annexure-E and order dated 6.11.2012 AnnexureH as well as the final order dated 19th July, 2013 of the 1st Respondent Annexure-J, be called upon from the office of the First Respondent above named namely from the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and be examined and verified to the extent of its genuineness, correctness and validity thereof.

[b] Issue necessary writ of order - quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 6.11.2012 and final order dated 19th July, 2013, passed by the First Respondent namely The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur at Nagpur - being Exhibit "J" annexed here being violative of principal natural justice, illegal, bad-in-law and passed without application of mind, facts as in documents and materials as available and without jurisdiction and excessive use of jurisdiction.

[c] Issue necessary directions to the Second Respondent above named in form of suggestions and recommendations, to establish the proper Quasijudicial Authorities in matters pertains to "octroi Rules of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur" with assistance of the first Respondent above named with further directions to make accountable the Octroi staff too in process of settling the process of recovery of ten times of the Octroi Amounts from any of the Noticees and Octroi rule be ordered to be amended.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus :

That, the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having a dealership of high value standard cars like "Audi" in the State of Maharashtra. The customers of the petitioner are high value customers. As such, the petitioner is required to extend value added services to them, such as drawing insurance policies, payment of various taxes, including octroi and completing other formalities. These services are provided free of costs.

The first respondent is Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (N.M.C.) constituted under City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 ("CNC Act" for short). He derives powers in the matter of imposition of penalty in the event of evasion of octroi, which powers are quasi-judicial in nature. According to the petitioner, the said powers are without any special or general directives of the State Government. We gather that, what the petitioner wants to say is that, the powers enjoyed by the Commissioner are unbridled and uncanalised, giving scope for its arbitrary exercise.

4. The second respondent is the Secretary in the Urban Development Public Health and Housing Department, Mumbai representing the State of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra has approved the assessment, collection and refund of cess (Octroi Duty Rules) ("Octroi Rules" for short) in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 6 of Section 115 of the CNC Act, which have come into force with effect from 1.6.1996. The rules envisage a declaration being given by a person (importer) bringing any goods, for its sale, consumption or use within the octroi limits. Rule 44 of the Octroi Rules, with which the petitioner has serious quarrel, in particular permits imposition of penalty at ten times of the amount of octroi duty against an importer, who is found to have evaded the octroi.

5. The petitioner is not having an office establishment at Nagpur. However, with a view to provide services to its high value customers, the petitioner had appointed one Mr. Bobby Thomas as an Agent at Nagpur. The petitioner used to collect the octroi duty from the customers and that amount used to be transferred to the account of Mr. Bobby Thomas. It was his duty to withdraw the amount and to pay the octroi duty and submit the receipts to the Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.) at the time of the registration of the vehicles.

6. In the year 2011, the petitioner had sold and delivered about 23 vehicles at Nagpur. The amount of octroi duty of these vehicles was transferred to the account of Mr. Bobby Thomas. However, Mr. Bobby Thomas did not pay the octroi duty and got the vehicles registered on the basis of forged receipts. This was disclosed when one Mr. Shibu Babu, who had purchased the Audi car, found the octroi receipt to be forged. On learning about the same, the petitioner terminated the services of the Agent Mr. Bobby Thomas and one Mr. Sean Vaz. The matter was also reported to the police. Mr. Bobby Thomas and others have accordingly been chargesheeted after investigation. According to the petitioner, although the police authorities came to the conclusion that the octroi receipts were forged, none of the employee of the Octroi Department or the office of the R.T.O. have been booked.

7. On 14.10.2011, the Deputy Commissioner (Octroi) Shri Milind Meshram issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging evasion of octroi duty. The petitioner sent its short reply dated 23.10.2011, seeking further time to give a detailed reply, which was sent on 22.11.2011. The petitioner was heard through their Advocate on 9.12.2011. It appears that the petitioner was served with a fresh show cause notice on 31.1.2012 with a demand of Rs.1,61,85,000/-. That was also replied by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a final order on 7.4.2012. That was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.2302/2012. On 5.7.2012, this Court had recorded a statement on behalf of the respondent-NMC that the order dated 7.4.2012 stands withdrawn and will not be enforced against the petitioner. This court passed the following order on 5.7.2012 :

"Mr. Kaptan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and particularly the Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner has instructed him to state before the Court that the order dated 07/4/2012 stands withdrawn and will not be enforced against the petitioner.

However, the petitioner's Advocate states that there are other reliefs which the petitioner wants to press and, therefore, he would obtain instructions from the petitioner with regard to prosecution of this writ petition.

In view of the statement made by Mr. Kaptan, nothing will prevent the Corporation from initiating such legal proceedings as are permissible in law for recovery of the octroi duty and passing fresh order.

Subsequently on 10.7.2012, this Court permitted the petition to be withdrawn.

8. It appears that the respondent no.1 issued yet another show cause notice dated 24.9.2012 to the petitioner, as to why, ten times octroi duty on 21 vehicles (in respect of which octroi duty was found to be not paid) amounting to Rs.1,55,95,039=20 ps. be not recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner sent a reply to the same on 27.9.2012, with the following prayers :

[a] The Octroi Staff be ordered to give inspection of all documents, office records, "information obtained from other sources" which were referred to in your subject notice while deciding and arriving "satisfaction" to recover ten times Octroi duty from us amounting to Rs. 1,55,95,039=20 paisa under cover of Octroi Rule 44, 14 (f) and 14 (h) as narrated in your show cause notice.

[b] To meet the end of justice as well as equity demands that your good self should give us the copies of entire material, more particularly of :

[a] Office record submitted by the Octroi Department of your good self.

[b] Information submitted by Audi Mumbai West (Company).

[c] The information obtained from other sources.

[d] Information gathered from R.T.O., Nagpur.

[e] V.C.D. of Cars entry, Nagpur.

[f] The final report of the Police Inspector, Ganesh Peth Police Station in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1 Nagpur on 21.10.2011 based on which your good self satisfied to claim ten times Octroi Duty from us.

[c] It is respectfully submit that the noticees be provided with all the materials as above for which the noticees undertakes to pay necessary copying fees after the inspection allowed by your good self.

[d] Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper.

9. The petitioner reiterated the prayers by his communication dated 9.10.2012. However, that was rejected by respondent no.1 vide communication dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure-H). The petitioner sent an additional reply on 17.11.2012, which according to the petitioner, was not considered and he was served with a final order dated 19.7.2013 (Annexure-J), which is subject matter of challenge in this case. The respondent no.1 has found that the petitioner has breached Rules 2, 8 (a) and 9 of the Octroi Rules and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay ten times the duty of Octroi under Rules 14(f) and 14(h) of the Octroi Rules, as claimed in the show cause notice.

10. Apart from challenging the imposition of the penalty on the basis of various submissions based on the interpretation to be placed on the Octroi Rules and the powers exercised by the Authorities, it is also contended that "dishonest and negligent staff at the Octroi Naka" lets and allows the vehicles to enter the octroi limits without the payment of octroi and then action is taken to impose ten times penalty. In this, the concerned staff members and officers are not made accountable, while the importer suffers. The NMC, while framing "Budget Deadlines" heavily relies on income from octroi duty. It is contended that previous Octroi Assistant Commissioner Shri Milind Meshram took credit for collection of higher octroi, when, in fact, he should have been made accountable for the number of vehicles entering the octroi limits without payment of octroi. It is contended that when CCTV's are installed at each octroi posts, there is no reason for such a number of vehicles entering the octroi limits without the payment of octroi. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent no.2 be directed to frame appropriate guidelines for the Competent Authority of the Corporation to exercise their powers in the matter of the payment of the octroi and the penalty.

11. The respondent no.1 has filed a reply and has contested the claim on various grounds. All the adverse allegations made and the motives imputed are denied. In short, it is contended that in the absence of filling up the declarations at the octroi post, there is a clear case of evasion of octroi made out. It is contended that Mr. Bobby Thomas and one Mr. Sean Vaz were employees of the petitioner, specifically entrusted with the work of providing various services to its customers, including payment of octroi. Thus, they were aware of the formalities. The petitioner would be liable for their act of misfeasance and malfeasance. It is contended that the petitioner cannot get away with the stand that the amount of octroi duty was already transferred to the account of Shri Thomas and, therefore, there was no intention to evade octroi duty. Insofar as the ground based on breach of principles of natural justice, it is contended that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order. There is no provision and there was no occasion to grant opportunity to cross examine the staff at the octroi posts or to provide the CCTV footage, as admittedly the vehicles were not taken to the octroi post. It is contended that entire irregularities were disclosed when Mr. Shibu Babu found the octroi receipts to be forged and that the car was brought within the octroi limits, with a Mumbai registration which was subsequently removed. It is contended that the inspection of the documents was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has also paid the ten times penalty in respect of the vehicle sold to Mr. Shibu Babu.

12. It is next contended that, at this stage, there is no question of the declaration being filled. There is no direction to that effect in the order dated 5.7.2012 in Writ Petition No.2302/2012. It is further contended that the Octroi Rules provide a detailed procedure and is a complete code in itself. The powers are well guided and the respondent no.1 has passed a well reasoned order which does not call for interference.

13. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder dated 23.6.2012, to which, the respondent no.1 has filed a further affidavit in reply dated 19.8.2012 of Shri Milind Meshram, the then Assistant Commissioner (Octroi).

14. We have heard Shri Vaghela, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.S. Kaptan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1. We have also heard Shri S.B. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.

15. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Milind Meshram could not have filed the reply on behalf of the NMC, particularly when allegations were made against him personally. It was contended that the Commissioner ought to have filed his affidavit in the matter.

16. It is submitted that at three different stages the respondent no.1 had claimed three different amounts. For instance in the earlier show cause notice which was withdrawn, the respondent no.1 had claimed an amount of Rs.1,61,85,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.1,55,95,039=20 in the final order. This would show that even the assessment of the octroi and the penalty is incorrect. The learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by respondent no.1 about evasion of octroi is clearly arbitrary and without any basis, particularly when the amount was already transferred by the petitioner to the account of Shri Bobby Thomas, its agent at Nagpur. It was contended that, at the worst, it was the misconduct on the part of Mr. Bobby Thomas of not having deposited the octroi. It is contended that even in the investigation in the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has not been found to be a party to the act of forgery of the octroi receipts. The learned counsel has taken us through the various provisions of the Octroi Rules in order to submit that the Competent Authority has wide, unbridled and uncanalised power in the case of imposition of penalty, which needs to be properly regulated by the respondent no.2 by issuance of appropriate guidelines.

17. The learned counsel submitted that when there are CCTV's installed and staff and officers posted at the octroi post, there is no reason for any vehicles to enter the octroi limits without the payment of octroi. In short, it was contended that it is the modus operandi of the respondent-Corporation to first allow the vehicles to enter the octroi limits and then impose penalty in order to augment its income. It was contended that while the importers suffers, the concerned staff members go scot free. Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that the powers exercised by the authorities are quasi-judicial in nature and as such would require principles of natural justice to be followed. This would also require a reasoned order to be passed which must demonstrate satisfaction of the Competent Authority on the basis of objective circumstances and material.

It is submitted that this lacking in the impugned order. Merely saying that the petitioner evaded the octroi would not be sufficient. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited .vs. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, reported in 2012 (1) BCR 526, Udaysingh s/o Sardarsingh Rajput .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 17 : [2007(2) ALL MR 36] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Engineering .vs. Union of India and another, reported in 1976 AIR 1785.

18. On the contrary, it was submitted by Shri C.S. Kaptan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 that most of the material facts in this case are not in dispute. It is submitted that admittedly no octroi duty was found to be paid in respect of 21 vehicles which were brought within octroi limits. It is submitted that in respect of 10 out of 21 vehicles, the octroi receipts were produced, but were found to be forged. The petitioner has deposited the octroi and the penalty in respect of the vehicles sold to Mr. Shibu Babu. It was contended that the stand taken by the petitioner that the penalty was paid personally by Mr. Bobby Thomas cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would submit that admittedly when the vehicles were not taken to the octroi post and the declaration forms were not filled in, there is a clear intention to evade octroi which is made out. It was submitted that, at this stage, the stand taken by the petitioner that the declaration be got filed, cannot be accepted. The learned senior counsel was at pains to point out that under the rules, it is the responsibility of the importer to take the goods/vehicles to the octroi post and to fill in appropriate declaration and pay the octroi. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that it is the duty of the concerned staff members to intercept every such vehicle. It cannot be accepted that if they fail to do so, no case of evasion can be made out. The learned senior counsel submitted that proper opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner, before passing of the impugned order, which is well reasoned and as such does not call for any interference. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Hari Pandurang Bhave .vs. Sonba Kondiba Bankar and others, reported in 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 613 in order to submit that when goods are imported clandestinely and no declaration as prescribed is made, there is a case of evasion of octroi made out. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the Octroi Rules are a complete Code in itself and have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse of the powers by the Competent Authority.

19. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Octroi Rules contain elaborate provisions governing the matter and there is no need for framing any additional guidelines.

20. We have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. It is not in dispute that the concerned Audi vehicles were brought within the octroi limits without furnishing any declaration and payment of the octroi. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the amount was already transferred to the personal account of Mr. Bobby Thomas and if at all there is any lapse, it is of Mr. Bobby Thomas or for the matter of that Mr. Sean Vaz and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. We do not find that the submission can be accepted. It is undisputed that both Mr. Bobby Thomas and Mr. Sean Vaz were the employees and were acting for and on behalf of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot extricate itself from any liability by saying that it was either Mr. Bobby Thomas or Mr. Sean Vaz, who were responsible for their conduct. It is further significant to note that Mr. Bobby Thomas was specifically employed by the petitioner at Nagpur to provide services to its high value customers, which included the payment of octroi. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the concerned employee i.e. Mr. Bobby Thomas was unaware of the procedure which is to be followed in this regard. This is not a case of a solitary incident of an owner of a vehicle, but that of an employee of a company having a dealership of cars. In our considered view, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that it was the individual act of Mr. Bobby Thomas or Mr. Sean Vaz. It may not be out of place to mention that the ten times duty in respect of vehicle of Shibu Babu has been paid and the respondent no.1 has also found that it has been paid for and on behalf of the company. On disclosure of the irregularities, the petitioner has terminated the services of Mr. Bobby Thomas and Mr. Sean Vaz and thus, during the relevant period, for which the irregularities relate, they were clearly acting for and on behalf of the petitioner. Prima facie, the considerations in the criminal case, instituted on the complaint of the petitioner, may be different, as the principle of vicarious liability may not apply there. We are conscious that the criminal case is pending before the competent court and we may not be understood to have expressed any final opinion, so as to cause prejudice to any of the parties. Thus, the argument that it was individual act or misconduct of Mr. Bobby Thomas or Mr. Sean Vaz, for which, the petitioner would not be liable, has to be rejected.

21. It would be necessary to reproduce the relevant octroi rules :

1. Definitions :- Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context :-

(10) Importer - Importer shall mean the person who is actually conveying the goods or articles into the octroi limits and shall also include the person on whose behalf the said goods are so conveyed.

Rule 2 is charging section which reads as under :

Goods subject to a payment of a cess, hereinafter called octroi duty, imposed by the Corporation under clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 114 of the Act, are wherever produced, liable to pay the octroi duty as soon as they enter the octroi limits of the Corporation.

Rule 8 which is also relevant for the purpose is as under :

(a) As soon as the goods are brought to the octroi limits, the importer shall take them to the nearest entrance nakas to be dealt with according to these rules.

(b) An official on duty at the octroi naka or branch octroi naka or any other person authorised by the Municipal Commissioner in this behalf, may call upon a person carrying any goods after they have entered the octroi limits to take them to the octroi naka. If such official has reason to believe that such goods are liable to octroi duty and there upon they shall be taken by the importer to the entrance naka and if such goods are found on examination liable to duty they shall be dealt with according to these rules. Drivers and owners of vehicles are pack animals shall stop at the octroi naka for examination of the goods and animals and shall not leave the naka until duty on goods and animals. If leviable, has been paid. They shall assist the octroi officials and carry out their orders in connection with the assessment and collection of duty on the goods and animals in their charge and shall fill up the register kept at the octroi naka and sign it.

We then have Rule 14 (b) & (f) is as under:

(b) The drivers or owners of any vehicles shall stop their vehicles on demand at any place within the octroi limits, whenever required by the Octroi Superintendent, Deputy Octroi Superintendent, Assistant Octori Superintendent or Inspector of the Octroi Department or any other officer authorised by the Municipal Commissioner.

(f) Any person bringing any dutiable goods within the octroi limits of the Corporation without paying the duty and without giving declaration to official-in-charge of the entrance naka, shall be liable to pay ten times the amount of duty leviable. The dutiable goods may be detained at the Bonded Ware House at the risk and cost of the evader till the payment of such penal duty is made. In addition, the importer will be liable to be prosecuted for evasion of duty."

22. It would be thus clear from a reading of Rule 1(10) that the petitioner would come within the ambit of an "importer" within the meaning of the rules. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had accepted the amount of octroi from the customers and as such was liable to pay the same in accordance with Rule 2 of the Octroi Rules. In this case the vehicles were never taken to the octroi naka/post and no declarations have been filled in. Rule 8 (a) would make it clear that it is primary responsibility of the importer to take the dutiable goods to the nearest entrance naka to be dealt with according to these rules. It is true that Rule 8 (b) also gives rise to a situation were an official on duty at the octroi naka or branch octroi naka or any other person authorized by the Municipal Commissioner in this behalf, may call upon a person carrying any goods after they have entered the octroi limits to take them to octroi naka, if such official has reason to believe that such goods are liable to octroi duty and there upon they shall be taken by the importer to the entrance naka and if such goods are found on examination liable to duty, they shall be dealt with according to these rules. However, the provisions of Rule 8 (b) cannot be read in derogation of Rule 8 (a) which imposes an obligation on the importer to take them to the nearest entrance nakas, when the goods are brought to the octroi limits.

23. In the present case, there is a clear breach in this regard. We are unable to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that, in such a case, the fact that, no action is taken against employee or officer of the octroi department would be relevant. We pose a question to ourselves. Even assuming that, such an action is taken and the octroi department officials are found to be acting either negligently or in conspiracy with the importer, Can the importer be absolved of his liability under the Rules.? The answer has to be in the negative. Thus, the argument in this regard will have to be refuted. Rule 9(v) of the Octroi Rules is significant. It says that if the importer fails to give declaration, it shall be presumed that the goods are imported in octroi limits for sale, consumption or use within such limits.

24. This takes us to Rule 14 (b) which obliges the driver or owners of any vehicles to stop their vehicles on demand at any place within the octroi limits, whenever required by the Octroi Officers. Section 14 (f) provides that any person bringing any dutiable goods within the octroi limits of the Corporation without paying the duty and without giving declaration to official incharge of the entrance Naka, shall be liable to pay ten times the amount of duty leviable. Section 14 (h) then provides that if it is found by any officer or official of the Octroi Department that the importer or his agent has filed a false declaration or produced a fraudulent document or "otherwise attempted to evade the duty", in part or in full, he shall be liable to pay ten times the amount of duty leviable and may in addition be liable to be prosecuted for giving false declaration or for producing fraudulent document and for evasion of duty also. For the present purpose, the Competent Authority has found that Rule 14 (f) (h) are attracted. Finally, Rule 44 provides for a show cause notice being issued by the Municipal Commissioner before the duty at ten times is recovered.

25. In the present case, undisputedly there were earlier notices issued including one by the Assistant Commissioner (Octroi). The earlier notice was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.2302/2012. The order dated 5.7.2012 would show that the Municipal Commissioner had decided to withdraw the earlier notice dated 7.4.2012 and in that view of the matter, the petition was disposed of on 10.7.2012. The perusal of the order dated 5.7.2012 would show that this court observed that the withdrawal of the notice dated 7.4.2012 would not prevent the Corporation from initiating such legal proceedings as are permissible in law for recovering the octroi duty and passing fresh orders. It is difficult to see, as to how, the said order can be read to mean that the Corporation could not have proceeded to recover penalty by subsequently issuing a show cause notice in accordance with rules. There is nothing in the order dated 5.7.2012 to show that the Corporation was precluded from recovering the penalty.

26. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra), one of which fell for determination of this Court, as noticed in para 11 of the judgment was, What is procedure for use of power under Rule 44.?

It was held that the passing of reasoned order and its communication to importer is vital in the working of Rule 44.

In the case of Siemens Engineering (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia held that the quasi-judicial authorities have to give reasons in support of the order. The case of Udaysigh Rajput, [2007(2) ALL MR 36] (supra) arose under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, in which, again it has been held that the quasi-judicial functionaries must follow quasi-judicial process in keeping with principles of natural justice. There cannot be any manner of dispute with the proposition that the quasijudicial authority as in the present case, ought to follow and observe the principles of natural justice and have to pass a reasoned order. We have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 and we find that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner and the impugned order is passed on consideration of all relevant material and circumstances.

In the case of Hari Bhave (supra) on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent, it has been inter alia held that where the declaration as prescribed is not made, there is no question of making any demand arises. That was a case under Section 398 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act read with Octroi Rules of Pune Municipal Corporation.

27. We also find that once the vehicle was never taken to the octroi post, there was no question of affording any opportunity for cross-examination of the employee/officer at the octroi post or providing CCTV footage. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 had observed that the CCTV cameras are so positioned which covers the vehicles which approach the naka and the vehicles passing from in front of the naka. It has been further observed that the road on which the concerned naka no.9 is located is far from the naka (about 50 ft.). The CCTV cameras cannot cover the vehicles plying on this road or locate the octroi liability from such distance. The respondent no.1 has set out the details (at page no.345 of the compilation) on the basis of which the amount is arrived at. Thus, we find that no exception can be taken to the order imposing penalty at ten times, as has been done by the impugned order. We are also unable to see, as to how, the filing of the affidavit by Shri Milind Meshram can be objected to. The submission in this regard have only stated to be rejected. Even as regards the submission that the concerned octroi officers allowed the vehicles to enter the octroi limits and then impose penalty, in order to augment the income from octroi, the respondent no.1 has noticed that on an average the ten times duty recovered is about 0.82% of the revenue collection made by the octroi department.

28. Even assuming for a moment that any such modus operandi is adopted, we are unable to see as to how the same can come to the aid of any importer who brings the vehicles within octroi limits, without payment of octroi or furnishing the declaration. We have gone through the relevant rules and we are unable to see any reason to hold that they give unbridled and uncanalised powers to the authorities, which would require a direction to the respondent no.2 to frame appropriate guidelines. In the circumstances, we find that no interference is called for in the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.