1 2025:CGHC:41544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(T) No.45 of 2013 Vijay Juwel S/o Lt P.P.Juwel Aged About 47 Years Proprietor Of Vijay Egg Center, Mahavir Takees (Mahavir Theater) Road, Patthalgaon, PS Patthalgaon, Distt Jashpur, R/o Rajkishor Nagar, PS Torawa, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Urban Administration Deptt, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon, Through The President, Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon, PS Patthalgaon, Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon, PS Patthalgaon, Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon, PS Patthalgaon, Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.19 16:13:04 +0530 2 For Petitioner: : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL. For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri MPS Bhatia, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the imposition of tax/fee on eggs @ Rs.3/- per box in an arbitrary manner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner runs wholesale business of eggs in the name and style of “Vijay Egg Center” and he is also having a shop within the territory of Nagar Panchayat, Patthalgaon. It is alleged that the Respondents/local authority have imposed tax/fee on eggs on the basis of the quantity i.e. per box, which is illegal. Hence this Petition has been filed. 3. In the reply filed by Respondents No.2 to 4, it has been mentioned that Section 127(6)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) enables the authority to make a provision for imposing the tax. For the sake of brevity, the said Section is reproduced as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX “(g) market dues on persons exposing goods for sale in any market or in any place belonging to or under the control of the Government or of the Council;” 3 It has been further averred that resolution dated 31.03.2011 has been passed by the Council earlier for imposing fee over certain items which were sold in the local market but the rate of tax was increased by the said resolution to Rs.3/- from that of Rs.1/- per box, therefore, the Petition sans merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the said provision that market dues on persons exposing goods for sale in any market or in any place belonging to or under the control of the Government or of the Council, as there is a reasonable classification in the taxation and as learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any unreasonable discrimination or action on the part of the authority in any manner as arbitrary in nature and further having considered the fact that only after passing of the said resolution, such taxation has been imposed, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmirty on the part of the Respondents/authorities with regard to imposition of the said tax/fee on the Petitioner. 5. In view of above, the instant Petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya