{"id":61908,"date":"1988-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988"},"modified":"2016-03-19T17:31:05","modified_gmt":"2016-03-19T12:01:05","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2062, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 482<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADHUKAR BALKRISHNA BADIYA & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 2062\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 482\n 1988 SCC  (4) 290\t  JT 1988 (3)\t381\n 1988 SCALE  (2)376\n\n\nACT:\n    Bombay  Motor  Vehicles  Tax Act, 1958  (as\t amended  by\nMaharashtra Act XIV of 1987, Maharashtra Act XXXIII of\t1987\nand  Maharashtra  Act lX of  1988)-Challenging\tvalidity  of\namended provisions of-Whether levy of one-time tax on  motor\ncycles or tricycles in the State was beyond the\t legislative\ncompetence of State Legislature and beyond Entry 57 of\tList\nII of Seventh Schedule.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    These Civil appeals and special leave petitions  centred\nround  one point, namely, the validity of the  Bombay  Motor\nVehicles  Tax  Act,  1958 as amended by\t Section  3  of\t the\nMaharashtra Act XIV of 1987 and Section 6 of the said Act as\namended\t  by  Maharashtra  Act\tXXXIII\tof  1987   and\t the\nMaharashtra Act IX of 1988.\n    Section 3 of the said Act XIV of 1987 added\t sub-section\n(IC) to provide for the levy of one-time tax at 15 times the\nannual\trate  on  all motor cycles in the  State.  The\tsaid\nprovisions further provided that in the case of motor cycles\nowned  by  a company or other commercial  organisation,\t the\none-time tax was to be levied at thrice the rate.\n    Section 6 of the said Act XIV of 1987 added\t sub-section\n(6)  to\t section 9, enabling a registered owner of  a  motor\ncycle or tricycle to obtain refund of `Lone_time tax\"  under\ncertain conditions.\n    Petitions\twere  filed  in\t the  High  Court   by\t the\nrespondents  in the appeals and petitioners in\tthe  special\nleave  petitions, challenging the amended provisions of\t the\nprincipal Act. The High Court held that (i) the levy of\t the\none-time  tax was beyond the legislative competence  of\t the\nState Legislature and also beyond Entry 57 of List II of the\nSeventh\t Schedule, and (ii) the provision for imposition  of\nlevy at thrice the rates on the vehicles owned by a firm  or\ncompany,  were\tneither discriminatory\tnor  arbitrary.\t The\nHigh Court struck down Act XIV of 1987. The appeals by leave\nwere filed by the State and the special leave petitions were\nfixed by the petitioners in this Court against the  decision\nof  the\t High  Court.  In  the\tmeanwhile,  the\t Maharashtra\nLegislature  enacted Maharashtra Act XXXIII of\t1987,  which\ndeleted Section 3(4) of the principal Act as amended by\t the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 482\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 483\nMaharashtra Act XIV of 1987, whereby the existing provisions\nof  refund for temporary non-user were made inapplicable  in\ncases  of motor cycles and tricycles, restricting the  right\nof  refund  to Section 9(6) in the  contingencies  mentioned\ntherein.  It  also introduced sub-section (7) to  section  9\nconferring  the right of refund in respect of  motor  cycles\nand tricycles in accordance with the rates specified in\t the\nFifth  Schedule. But the said schedule did not prescribe   a\nseparate  rate\tof refund for  the  company-owned  vehicles.\nTherefore,  the\t refund\t in  respect  of  the  company-owned\nvehicles  was the same as that payable to individual   owned\nvehicles  even\tthough\tthe  tax paid  on  former  class  of\nvehicles was three times. Soon\tthereafter, the\t Maharashtra\nLegislature  enacted  Act  IX  of  1988,  whereby  the\tonly\nrelevant change for the present purpose was that the rate of\nrefund\twas  enhanced  to  three times\tin  respect  of\t the\ncompany-owned vehicles.\n    Before  this Court, the appellant-State  submitted\tthat\nthe  amendments\t enacted by the Maharashtra Acts  XXXllI  of\n1987 and IX of 1988 had brought the principal Act as amended\nby the Maharashtra Act XIV of 1987 within the constitutional\nrequirements   of  making  one-time  tax's  regulatory\t and\ncompensatory tax and that it was not necessary to decide  if\nthe  Act as it stood when it was challenged before the\tHigh\nCourt?\twas beyond the legislative competence of  the  State\nLegislature.\n    The\t respondents in the appeals and the  petitioners  in\nthe  special  leave petitions urged that as even  after\t the\namendment  no refund was available in respect of  a  vehicle\nwhich had been registered for more than 13 years? the effect\nof that was that no refund al all was available in  respect.\nof  the\t tax  paid  for a vehicle  for\tthe  14th  and\t15th\nyears.The impugned levy of tax ceased to be compensatory  or\nregulatory  and was void under Entry 57 of List II  and\t was\nviolative of Article 301 of the Constitution.\n    Disposing  of  the appeals and  dismissing\tthe  special\nleave petitions the Court.\n    HELD:  The tax imposed on the motor vehicles or a  class\nof motor cycles would not be valid unless it is compensatory\nor  regulatory or does not have any nexus with the  vehicles\nusing  the roads. In such a case. the levy would be  Section\nof  the\t said  Act XIV of 1987\tadded  sub-section  (IC)  to\nprovide for the levy of one-time tax at 15 times the  annual\nrate  on all motor cycles in the State. The said  provisions\nfurther provided that in the case of motor cycles owned by a\ncompany\t or other commercial organisation, the one-time\t tax\nwas to be levied at thrice the rate.\n    The\t fact that the act, as at present, did\tnot  provide\nfor  refund in the 14th and 15th years, did no make the\t law\noutside the competence of the State Legislature. he  concept\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 484\nof   \"regulatory  and  compensatory\"  tax  does\t  no   imply\nmathematical precision\tof quid pro quo. [489E]\n    After   the\t amendment,  the  Act  came  with   in\t the\nconstitutional\trequirements  of making he  one-time  tax  a\nregulatory  and compensatory tax. It was true that  the\t Act\nhas  no\t provided  for refund in the 14h and 15h  years\t but\nthat  does  no make he law out sides the competence  of\t the\nState  Legislature. It is no mathematical precision that  is\nnecessary  nor\tcan  it be. there is in\t the  provisions  as\namended,  as  amended,\ta discernible  and   an identifiable\nobject\tbehind the levy and a nexus between the subject\t and\nthe object of the levy, [491E-F]\n    Two principles have to be emphasised, firstly, that\t the\ntax must be regulatory and compenstaory and secondly,  there\nmust  be  no  discrimination. A taxation  law  cannot  claim\nimmunity  from\tthe  equality clause in Article\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution,  but  in view of the intrinsic  complexity  of\nfiscal adjustments of diverse elements, a considerable\twide\ndiscretion and latitude in the matter of classification\t for\ntaxation  purpose is permissible. The life of  Motor  cycles\nand  tricycles\tnormally exceeds 25  years.  Non-refund\t for\ncertain\t period\t is  no conclusive of the  matter.  Even  if\nmathematical  provision\t is no possible, it cannot  be\tsaid\nthat it is wholly unmathematical. The collection of ax for a\nperiod\tof  15\tears at one point of time  is  a  convenient\nmethod enabling the owner o use he vehicle for more than  25\nyears without having to pay the tax periodically and pay the\nenhanced  tax at  may be levied during the 25 years of\tlife\nof  the\t vehicle.  Regulatory and compensatory\ttax  can  be\nlevied\tto  the\t extent\t e State  is  required\tto  pay\t for\nrendering the services. [491G;492A-C]\n    The Act, as at present, is not violative of Article\t 145\nof  the\t Constitution.\tThe  fact  that\t the   company-owned\nvehicles  are  taxed  that three times the  rate payable  by\nindividuals,  does  not\t make the legislation  violatvie  of\nArticle\t 14.  Histrocially, the company-owned  vehicles\t are\nalways\tbeen taxed at a rate higher that  the  individually-\nowned  vehicles. he legislature has he power  to  distribute\ntax  burden  in\t a flexible manner and the  Court  would  no\ninterfere with the same. It could not be said that there was\ndifferentiation\t without  any basis and as  such  there\t was\ndiscrimination. [492E-H]\n    In\tview  of the principles applicable to  the  taxation\nlaws  and  various  other factors, the\tMaharashtra  Act  as\namended\t from time to time does not suffer from any vice  of\nbeing  not regulatory or compensatory taxation nor from\t the\nvice  of being violative of Article 14 of the  Constitution,\nand  the challenge to the provisions of the Act\t as  amended\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 485\nafter\tthe  judgment  of  the\tHigh  Court  could  not\t  be\nmaintained. [494G-;495A]\n    After  the\tamendments afore-mentioned the Act  does  no\nsuffer\tfrom the vice mentioned in the judgment of the\tHigh\nCourt  .  The appeals were allowed thus, and  the  challenge\nmade in the special leave petitions was dismissed. [495]\n    The\t taxes would be realised in accordance with the\t Act\nand  the  necessary adjustments would be  made\taccordingly.\n[495C]\n    Bolani  Ors. Ltd. v. State of Orissa. [1975] 2 SCR\t138;\nG.K.  Krishnan v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.,<\/a>  [1975]  2\nS.C.R.\t715; Malwa Bus Service (P) Ld.\tv. State  of  Punjab\nand  Ors.,<\/a>  [1983]  2  S.C.R.  1009;'  International   ouris\nCorporation v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 364;\nIncome tax Officer, shillong & Anr. v. N. Takim Roy  Rymbai,\netc., [1976] 2 SCR 413;\t Mrs. Meenakshi & Ors. v., State  of\nKarnataka & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1283; Anant Mills Co. Ltd.  v.\nState  of Gujarat and Ors.,<\/a> [1975] 3 S>.C.R.  220;  Khandige\nSham  Bhat  & Ors. v. The Agricultural Income<\/a>  tax  Officer,\n[1963] 3 SCR 809 and State of Karnataka v. K.  Gopalakrishna\nShenoy and Another, A.I.R.<\/a> 1987 S.C. 1911, refered to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1631-33
\nof 1987 etc.
\n    From  the  judgment\t and order dated  10.7.1987  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in W.P. Nos. 941, 986 and 1012 of 1987.
\n    A.S. Bobde. Adv. General. S. K. Dholakia and A.S, Bhasme
\nfor he Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Soli  J. Sorabjee, R.N. Sachhar, Mrs. Aruna\t Mathur,  J.
\nWad, K.J. John and A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents.
\n    The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These civil appeals and  special
\nleave  petitions  centre  around  one  point,  namely,\t the
\nvalidity  of  the  Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax  Act,  1958  as
\namended by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act, XIV of 1987  as
\nwell as Section 6 of the said Act as amended by\t Maharashtra
\nAct  XXXlll  of\t 1987 as well as the Maharashtra Act  IX  of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 486
\n    The\t Bombay\t Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 prior  to\t its
\namendment  in  1987  provided for levy of  tax\ton  vehicles
\nannually  or  quarterly.  In  1987,  by\t Section  3  of\t the
\nMaharashtra Act No. XIV of 1987, sub-section (IC) was  added
\nto  provide for levy of one time tax at 15 times the  annual
\nrate on all motor cycles used or kept for use in the  State.
\nThe  said provisions further provided that in case of  motor
\ncycles used or kept for use by a company or other commercial
\norganisation,  the one time tax was to be levied  at  thrice
\nthe rate. Section 6 of the Maharashtra Act 14 of 1987, added
\nsub-section  (6) to Section 9 of the principal Act. The\t new
\nsub-section (6) enabled a registered owner of motor cycle or
\ntricycle  to obtain refund of “one time tax” in cases  where\n<\/p>\n
(a)  the vehicle is removed  outside the State; and (b)\t the
\nregistration of vehicle is cancelled due to scrapping of the
\nvehicle, or for a  similar reason. The refund was to be paid
\nin  accordance\twith  the  Fourth Schedule.  The  Third\t and
\nFourth\tSchedules were introduced by the Maharashtra Act  14
\nof 1987.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe case of Luna Mopeds, the one time tax  comes  to
\nRs.2925\t which\taccording to the petitioners in\t the  S.t.P.
\nNos.  1\t 1673-75\/87, is 86% of the ex-factory price  of\t the
\nMoped.\tIn  that  view\tthe  petitions\twere  filed  by\t the
\nrespondents   in  the  first  batch  of\t appeals   and\t the
\npetitioners  in\t the second batch  challenging\tthe  amended
\nprovisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. On or
\nabout 9\/10th July. 1987, a Division Bench of the Bombay High
\nCourt, Nagpur Bench held that the levy of one  time tax\t was
\nbeyond\tthe legislative competence of the State\t Legislature
\nand also beyond Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
\nIt  further held that the provisions for imposition of\tlevy
\nat thrice the rates so far as the vehicles owned by the firm
\nor  the company, were neither discriminatory nor  arbitrary.
\nThe High Court, however, in view of the fact that the refund
\nwas restricted to the circumstances mentioned above.  struck
\ndown  Act  14  of 1987. According to  the  High\t Court,\t the
\nabsence of provisions for refund in cases of temporary\tnon-
\nuser  made the Maharashtra Act XlV of 1987, confiscatory  in
\ncharacter and not regulatory or compensatory which alone was
\nin  the\t competence  of the  State  Legislature.  The  State
\npreferred  applications\t for  leave to\tappeal\tagainst\t the
\nimpugned  judgment  and\t  the  special\tleave  having\tbeen
\ngranted, are the subject-matter of Civil Appeals Nos.  1631-
\n33\/877.\t  The\tpetitioners  also,   filed   special   leave
\napplications  which are the subject-matter of Special  Leave
\nPetitions Nos. 11673-75\/87 which have been heard along\twith
\nthese  appeals.\t While the State’s appeal against  the\tHigh
\nCourt’s\t  judgment  was\t pending  before  this\tCourt,\t the
\nMaharashtra  Legislature enacted Maharashtra  Act XXXIII  of
\n1987.  It  deleted  Section 3(4) of the\t principal  Act,  as
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 487
\namended by Maharashtra\tAct XIV of 1987. That provision made
\nthe  existing  provisions of refund for\t temporary  non-user
\ninapplicable  in  cases\t of  motor  cycles  and\t  tricycles,
\nrestricting   the  right  of  refund  to  Section  9(6)\t  in
\ncontingencies  mentioned  above.  It  also  introduced\tsub-
\nsection\t (7)  to  Section 9 conferring right  of  refund  in
\nrespect of motor cycles and tricycles in accordance with the
\nrates  specified  in the Fifth Schedule and  prescribed\t the
\nrates of refund in the Fifth Schedule. But the said Schedule
\ndid  not  prescribe a separate rate of refund  for  company-
\nowned vehicles. Therefore, the refund in respect of company-
\nowned vehicles would be same as that payable to\t individual-
\nowned vehicles, even though the tax paid on former class  of
\nvehicles  was three times. Soon thereafter  the\t Maharashtra
\nLegislature  enacted Act 9 of 1988 The only relevant  change
\nfor  the  present purpose was that the rate  of\t refund\t was
\nenhanced   to  three  times  in\t respect  of   company-owned
\nvehicles.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  the contentions are judged, it is imperative  to
\nreiterate that the tax imposed on motor vehicles or a  class
\nof motor cycles would not be valid unless it is compensatory
\nor  regulatory or does not have any nexus with the  vehicles
\nusing  the  public roads. In such a case the levy  would  be
\nviolative  of Act. 301 of the Constitution and would not  be
\nprotected   by\tAct.  304  of  the  Constitution.  In\tthis
\nconnection  reference may first be made to the\tobservations
\nof this Court in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa,<\/a> [1975]
\n2  SCR 138 where at page 155 this Court observed that  Entry
\n57  of\tList II of the Seventh Schedule was subject  to\t the
\nlimitations, namely, the power of taxation cannot exceed the
\ncompensatory  nature  which must have some  nexus  with\t the
\nvehicles  using\t the roads. If the vehicles do not  use\t the
\nroads, notwith-standing that these are registered under\t the
\nAct,  these cannot be taxed. More or less the same view\t was
\nechoed in G. K. Krishnan v. The State of Tamil Nadu &  Anr.,<\/a>
\n[1975 ] 2 SCR 715.\n<\/p>\n
    See also Malwa Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab &
\nOrs.,<\/a>[1983] 2 SCR 1009.\n<\/p>\n
    On behalf of the appellant-State, the learned  Advocate-
\nGeneral\t submitted  that  the  amendments  enacted  by\t the
\nMaharashtra  Act  No.  33 of 1987 and No. 9  of\t 1988,\thave
\nbrought the principal Act as amended by the Maharashtra\t Act
\nNo.  XIV of 1987 within the constitutional  requirements  of
\nmaking `one time tax’ a regulatory and compensatory tax.  It
\nwas  submitted\tby  him that this development  had  made  it
\nunnecessary for this Court to decide if the Act, as it stood
\nwhen it was challenged before the High Court, was beyond the
\nlegislative  competence\t of the State  Legislature.  It\t was
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 488
\nfurther\t emphasised that the fact that the Act\tat  present,
\ndoes not provide for refund in the 14th & v 15th years, does
\nnot  make  the\tlaw  outside the  competence  of  the  State
\nLegislature.  It was urged that the concept  of\t “regulatory
\nand compensatory tax” does not imply mathematical precision.
\nIn  this context one may refer to the observations  of\tthis
\nCourt in International Tourist Corpn. v. State of Haryana  &
\nOrs., [1981] 2 SCR 364, where at page 374 Justice  Chinnappa
\nReddy speaking for this Court observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
    “But  to  say  that\t the  nature  of  a  tax  is  of   a
\ncompensatory  and regulatory nature is not to say  that\t the
\nmeasure\t  of  the  tax\tshould\tbe  ‘proportionate  to\t the
\nexpenditure  incurred  on the regulation  provided  and\t the
\nservices  rendered. If the tax were to be  proportionate  to
\nthe expenditure on regulation and service it would not be  a
\ntax but a fee.\n<\/p>\n
    While  in  the  case  of a fee it  may  be\tpossible  to
\nprecisely  identify and measure the benefits  received\tfrom
\nthe  Government and levy the fee according to  the  benefits
\nreceived  and  the expenditure incurred, in the\t case  of  a
\nregulatory and compensatory tax it would ordinarily be\twell
\nhigh   impossible   to\tidentify  and  measure,\t  with\t any
\nexactitude,  the  benefits  received  and  the\t expenditure
\nincurred  and  levy  the  tax  according:  to  the  benefits
\nreceived and the expenditure incurred. What is necessary  to
\nuphold a regulatory and compensatory tax is the existence of
\na specific. identifiable object behind the levy and a  nexus
\nbetween he subject and he object of he levy.”\n<\/p>\n
    Earlier  this  principal  had been\tsated  in  Income tax
\nofficer\t Shillong & Anr.v. N. Takim Roy Rymbai etc.,[1976] 3
\nSAC  413,  where this Court  observed  though  taxation\t law
\ncould  not  claim  immunity from the  equality\tclause\ti  n
\nArticle\t 14 of the Constitution, it must be remembered\tthat
\nin view of the intrinsic complexity of fiscal adjustments of
\ndiverse element, he State has a considerably wide discretion
\nin  the\t matter of classification of  taxation purposes. the
\nfact  that  the tax falls more heavily on some in  the\tsame
\ncategory, is by itself\tno ground to render the law invalid.
\nSimilar are he observations of this Court in Mrs.  Meenakshi
\n& Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1983 Sc 1283; Anant
\nMills Co Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,<\/a>[1975] 3 SC 220 and
\nKhhandige  Sham\t Bhat & Ors. V. The Agricultural  Income<\/a>  ax
\nOffice, [1963] 3 SCR 809.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 489
\n    In\tthe instant case, the impugned legislation had\tbeen
\nsubsequently  amended  to  provide  for\t the  refund  of   a
\nproportionate  part of the one-time tax in the event of\t the
\nvehicle not being used for a period of quarter or more\tthan
\na  quarter of a year as mentioned before. This was  provided
\nby  substituting a new sub-section (7) to section 9  of\t the
\nAct and also substituting new Fifth Schedule.
\n    Even   after  the  amendment,  however,  no\t refund\t  is
\navailable in respect of a vehicle which has been  registered
\nfor  more than 13 years. The effect of the same is  that  no
\nrefund\tat all is available in respect of the tax paid for a
\nvehicle for the 14th and 15th years, it was urged on  behalf
\nof the respondents in the appeals and the petitioners in the
\nS.L.Ps.\t It  was submitted on their behalf that\t so  far  as
\nfour-wheelers  are  concerned,\tSection\t 9(1)  of  the\t act
\nprovided  for refund of the proportionate amount of tax\t for
\nevery completed calendar month for which the vehicle has not
\nbeen used. It was urged on behalf of the respondents in\t the
\nappeals and the petitioners in the S.L.Ps. that there is  no
\njustification  what so ever for the non-grant of the  refund
\nof the proportionate amount of tax paid in respect of a\t two
\nwheeler\t or  three wheeler, which is not used  in  its\t14th
\nand\/or\t15th  year.  On this score, it was  urged  on  their
\nbehalf\t that  the  impugned  levy  of\ttax  ceases  to\t  be
\ncompensatory  or regulatory and as such is void under  Entry
\n57  of\tList  II and thus violative of Article\t301  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour  opinion the fact that the Act, as\tat  present,
\ndoes not provide for refund in the 14th and 15th years, does
\nnot  make  the\tlaw  outside the  competence  of  the  State
\nLegislature.  The concept of “regulatory  and  compensatory”
\ntax  does not imply mathematical precision of quid pro\tquo.
\nThis   aspect  was  emphasised\tin   International   Tourist
\nCorporation etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (supra) as
\nnoted before.\n<\/p>\n
    It was further submitted on behalf of the owners of\t two
\nwheelers that the impugned one-time levy of Rs.975 has\tbeen
\nworked\tout at Rs.65 per two wheeler per annum for 15  years
\nand is sought to be recovered from the two wheeler owner  as
\na  one-time  down  payment at the time\tthe  two-wheeler  is
\npurchased  by him. On behalf of the  respondents\/petitioners
\nit  was contended that having regard to the extent  of\troad
\nuser by a two wheeler, in comparison with the road user by a
\nfour  wheeler,\tthe Legislature considered that.  a  tax  of
\nRs.65  per two wheeler per annum would be a  reasonable\t and
\nadequate compensatory levy. While the maximum annual rate of
\ntax was fixed at Rs. 200 per annum for motor  cars  weighing
\nnot  more  than 750 kg and Rs.36O per annum for\t motor\tcars
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 490
\nweighing between 750 kg to 1500 kg it may be noted that\t the
\ntax  on four wheelers has not been increased. But as far  as
\ntwo  wheelers are concerned the one-time tax for the  period
\nof  15 years is exactly 15 times the amount of tax of  Rs.65
\nper year. It is\t clear from these factors, it was  submitted
\nby  the\t owners of the two wheelers,  that  the\t Legislature
\ncontinues to consider the tax of  Rs.65 per two wheeler\t per
\nyear  to  be  an  adequate  compensatory  tax.\tHowever,  by
\nrecovering  the\t tax for the future period of  15  years  in
\nadvance\t as a one time levy, the taxing authorities  are  in
\nfact  recovering not Rs.65 per two wheeler per year  but  in
\nreality\t about\tRs.356.79  per two  wheeler  per  year.\t The
\nrespondents\/petitioners\t sought to explain the\tposition  by
\nsubmitting  that if the two wheeler owner has an  amount  of
\nRs.975 with him at the time of purchase of the vehicle,\t and
\nis  not\t compelled to make one-time payment, then  he  would
\ninitially pay only Rs.65 as the tax for the first year. That
\nwould  leave  a\t balance amount of Rs.9.10  which  could  be
\ninvested  by him at an interest yield of 15% per  annum.  It
\nwas  urged that the rate of interest that is recoverable  as
\nwell as paid under the Income Tax Act is 15% per annum.\t The
\nsaid amount of Rs.910 would yield an interest of Rs.  136.50
\nin  the\t first\tyear. Out of that amount of  Rs.  136.50  an
\namount\tof Rs.65 would be paid by the two wheeler  owner  as
\ntax  at the beginning of the second year.  Consequently,  an
\namount\tof Rs.71.50 would be available from out of the\tsaid
\ninterest earning of Rs. 136.50, which also could be invested
\nat  a  yield of 15% per annum. Consequently, the  amount  of
\ninterest  that\twould be earned by the vehicle owner in\t the
\nsecond\tyear  would come to Rs. 147. 23, out of\t which\tonly
\nRs.65  would have to be paid as tax in the beginning of\t the
\nthird  year,  leaving a balance of  Rs.82.23  available\t for
\nfurther investment. It was submitted that by compelling\t the
\nvehicle\t  owner to make the one-time down payment of  Rs.975
\nat the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the owner is  in
\nreality being deprived of a total amount of Rs.4376. 19 over
\nthe  said period of 15 years. If this amount is\t divided  by
\n15,  the resultant figure will be Rs.291.79.  The  effective
\ntax burden has thus in fact been multiplied by about 5 times
\nonly as a result of the one-time levy, it was urged. It\t was
\nsubmitted  that\t the said one-time  levy  was  unreasonable,
\ndiscriminatory and not regulatory or compensatory. The\tfact
\nthat  a\t tax  on motor vehicles\t must  be  compensatory\t and
\nregulatory  in\torder  to be valid, was\t emphasised  in\t the
\ndecision  of  this  Court  in  Stare  of  Karnataka  v.\t  K.
\nGopalakrishna  Shenoy  and<\/a> another, A.I.R.  1487  S.C.\t1911
\nwhere  at page 1915 of the report, it was observed that\t tax
\non  motor vehicles is a compensatory tax levied for the\t use
\nof the roads and it is not a tax on ownership or  possession
\nof motor vehicles. It was emphasised on behalf of the owners
\nof  the vehicles that the impugned legislation is  based  on
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 491
\nthe assumption that two wheelers and three wheelers have  an
\napproximate  life  of  15 years. It is\ton  that  basis\t and
\nfooting\t that  the  rates of tax have  been  fixed.  It\t was
\ncontended  that the life of two wheelers and three  wheelers
\nis as much as 25 to 30 years and therefore, the recovery  of
\nthe  one  time\ttax  for the period  of\t 15  years  actually
\nconstitutes the conferment of a benefit on the owners of two
\nwheelers  and  three wheelers. In this\tconnection,  on\t the
\nother  hand it is of importance to note that the  Department
\nof  Heavy  Industry,  Ministry of  Industry,  Government  of
\nIndia,\thad  commissioned a report from an eminent  firm  of
\nChartered  Accountants on Long Term Demand  Projections\t for
\nAutomotive  Vehicles  (including  two  wheelers\t and   three
\nwheelers).  The said report concludes, after  an  exhaustive
\nanalysis of statistical data including the data provided  by
\nvehicle\t manufacturers\tand also studies made in  the  past,
\nthat the average life of scooters is 10 years, that of motor
\ncycles\tc)  years and that of mopeds 5 years. But  what\t was
\nemphasised was that one-time levy of tax compelled owners of
\ntwo wheelers to incur a further expenditure of about 70%  of
\nthe cost of the vehicles purchased by them at the time\tthey
\nacquire\t the  vehicle  and  that  imposes  heavy  additional
\nliabilities.  It  was,\ttherefore,  submitted  that  it\t was
\nneither compensatory nor regulatory and further more, it was
\ndiscriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas further submitted that section 3(IC)(c)  exempts
\npublic trusts and recognised institutions. That was bad.
\n    In\tour  opinion,  after  the  amendment  the   mischief
\nmentioned  in  the judgment and order of the High  Court  of
\nBombay\thas been remedied. On an examination of the  various
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act as amended, we\t have  come  to\t the
\nconclusion that after the amendment the Act comes within the
\nconstitutional\trequirement  of making the  one-time  tax  a
\nregulatory   and  compensatory\ttax.  It  is  true  as\t was
\nemphasised  that the Act has not provided for refund in\t the
\n14the  and 15th years but does not make the law outside\t the
\ncompetence of the State Legislature. It is not\tmathematical
\nprecision  that is necessary nor can it be. There is in\t the
\nprovisions  as\tamended, a discernible and  an\tidentifiable
\nobject\tbehind the levy and a nexus between the subject\t and
\nthe object of the levy.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis  matter two principles have to  be\t emphasised,
\nfirstly.  that the tax must be regulatory  and\tcompensatory
\nand  secondly,\tthere  must  be\t no  discrimination.   About
\ndiscrimination\tit is well to remember that a  taxation\t law
\ncannot claim immunity from the equality clause in Article 14
\nof the Constitution. But in view of the intrinsic complexity
\nof  fiscal adjustments of diverse elements,  a\tconsiderably
\nwide discretion and latitude in the matter of classification
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 492
\nfor taxation purpose is permissible. See the observations of
\nthis Court in Income Tax Officer, Shillong and Anr. etc.  v.
\nN.  Takim  Roy\tRymbai etc. etc.,  (supra).  Also  see\t the
\nobservation  in\t Mrs.\tMeenakshi and  others  v.  State  of
\nKarnataka, (supra); Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat
\n&  Ors.,<\/a>  (supra)  and Khandige Sham Bhat and  Ors.  v.\t The
\nAgricultural  Income-tax Officer,<\/a> (supra). The\tevidence  on
\nrecord\tshows  that the life of motor cycles  and  tricycles
\nnormally  exceeds  25 years. The  so-called  non-refund\t for
\ncertain\t period\t is not conclusive of the  matter.  Even  if
\nmathematical  precision is not possible, we cannot say\tthat
\nit  is\twholly unmathematical. The collection of tax  for  a
\nperiod\tof  15 years at one point of time  is  a  convenient
\nmethod\tenabling the owner to use the vehicle for more\tthan
\n25  years, without having to visit the office to  pay\t the
\ntax  periodically, and pay enhanced tax that may  be  levied
\nduring\tthe 25 years of life of the vehicle. Regulatory\t and
\ncompensatory  tax can be levied to the extent the  State  is
\nrequired to pay for rendering the services. According to the
\nState,\tthe  evidence  on  record shows\t that  the  cost  of
\nservices is twice the total amount recovered from all  types
\nof vehicles. The balance of expenditure is met by the  State
\nfrom  the general revenues. Even from this half\t collection,
\nthe motor cycles and tricycles contribute only 6.4 per cent.
\nThe  percentage\t of motor cycles and tricycles is 56  to  58
\npercent\t of all vehicles. Thus, even insubstantial  increase
\nin  their  rates cannot be said to be not a  “regulatory  or
\ncompensatory” tax measure.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Act, as at present, is not violative of Article  14
\nof  the Constitution. The fact that  company-owned  vehicles
\nare  taxed at three times the rate payable  by\tindividuals,
\ndoes  not  make\t the legislation violative  of\tArticle\t 14.
\nHistorically,  the company-owned vehicles have\talways\tbeen
\ntaxed at a rate higher than the individually-owned vehicles.
\nAs  appears from the records produced. the motor cycles\t and
\ntricycles  constituting\t 56 to 58 per cent of all  types  of
\nvehicles  contribute only 6.4 per cent of the total  revenue
\nearned\tthrough\t the  tax imposed by the Act.  It  is  well-
\nsettled that the Legislature has the power to distribute tax
\nburden\tin  a  flexible\t manner\t and  the  Court  would\t not
\ninterfere with the same. This principle has been  reiterated
\nin  G.K.   Krishnan etc. etc. v. The State of Tamil  Nadu  &
\nAnr.  etc.,  (supra) where this Court observed that  in\t the
\ncontext\t of  commercial regulation, Article 14\tis  offended
\nonly   if  the\tclassification\trests  on   grounds   wholly
\nirrelevant  to\tthe achievement of the\tobjective  and\tthis
\nlenient\t standard is further weighted in the State’s  favour
\nby the fact that a statutory discrimination will not be\t set
\naside if a state of facts may reasonably be conceived by the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 493
\nCourt  to  justify it. Tax laws have to respond\t closely  to
\nlocal  needs  and Court’s familiarity with  these  needs  is
\nlikely to be limited. Therefore, the Court must be aware  of
\nits  own remoteness and lack of familiarity with  the  local
\nproblems.  Classification is dependent upon  peculiar  needs
\nand  specific difficulties of the community. The  needs\t and
\nthe difficulties of a community are constituted out of facts
\nand information beyond the easy ken of the Court.
\n    It\t appears  that\tin  the\t instant  case,\t the   State
\nGovernment  has specifically averred that the  company-owned
\nvehicles  travel more and use roads more often. No  evidence
\nhave  been  produced to the contrary. In view of  the  well-
\nsettled\t principles, we cannot say that there  was   without
\nany basis and as such there was discrimination.
\n    It\tfurther\t appears that the Government  of  lndia\t has
\nliberalised the licensing policy and granted large number of
\nindustrial licences for the manufacture of two wheelers.  In
\nMaharashtra itself following is the new registration of\t two
\nwheelers during the last four and five year:\n<\/p>\n
   \" 1983-84\t\t     - 1,13,949\n     1984-85\t\t     - 1,24,877\n     1985-86\t\t     - 1,66,124\n     1986-87\t\t     - 2,01,904\"\n<\/pre>\n
    In\t1986-87 per working day on  an average 929  new\t two
\nwheeler have been registered. There was tremendous strain on
\nMotor  Vehicles Department due to increase in the number  of
\ntwo  wheeler. The following statistics and figures  indicate
\nthe  position  that  one  time\ttax  on\t two  wheelers\thave
\nbeneficient effect:\n<\/p>\n
    “As\t on  1.4.1987 there were 10,93,170 two\twheelers  in
\nMaharashtra and total number of vehicles was 1841 lakhs.
\n    In\t1985-86 the total revenue by way of Motor   Vehicles
\nTax was Rs.98 crores out of which only Rs. 6 to 7 crores was
\nfrom two wheelers.\n<\/p>\n
    That  means 58% vehicles (3 wheelers) used to give\tonly
\n6.4% Motor Tax for which 22,000 man days were required to be
\nspent.\n<\/p>\n
    All\t the  two wheeler  owners were required to  come  to
\nR.T.O. for payment of tax every year.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 494
\n    Almost 70 to 75% Motor Vehicle Tax arrear cases were  of
\n2 wheelers.\n<\/p>\n
    Because of new system of one time tax if the owner\tpays
\nit, he is not required to pay the tax again during the\tlife
\ntime of the 2 wheeler.\n<\/p>\n
    Any\t further increase in one time tax rate will  not  be
\napplicable to the 2 wheelers which have already paid the one
\ntime tax.\n<\/p>\n
    Statistics\tshow that the 2 wheelers are being used\t for
\nmore than 25 years.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t rate  of  increase of 2 wheelers  because  of\teasy
\navailability  and  affordability is almost  25%.  The  total
\nnumber\tof two wheelers projections in the State will be  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    By the end of 1986-87  -10.94 lakh
\n\t\t  1987-88  -13.33 lakh
\n\t\t  1988-89  -16.20 lakh
\n\t\t  1989-90  -19.69 lakh
\n\t\t  1990-91  -23.77 lakh
\n\t\t  1991-92  -28.73 lakh
\n    Existing  vehicles\twill  have to pay one  time  tax  in
\nsliding scale rate. Older the vehicles, less will be the tax.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This  tax  system is already in existence  in  Karnataka
\nsince 1.4.1986 and also in Gujarat, Rajasthan.
\n    This  new system will definitely give relief to the\t two
\nwheeler owners as they will not be required to come to\tR.T.
\nOffice for annual payment.”\n<\/p>\n
    Having regard to these factors and having regard to\t the
\nprinciples  applicable\tto  taxation laws,  we\tare  of\t the
\nopinion\t that  the Maharashtra Act as amended from  time  to
\ntime  and mentioned hereinbefore, does not suffer  from\t any
\nvice  of being not regulatory or compensatory  taxation\t nor
\nfrom  the  vice\t of being violative of\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthat  view  of\tthe matter,  the  challenge  to\t the
\nprovisions  of the Act as amended after the judgment of\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 495
\nBombay High Court cannot be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
    In that view of the matter, Civil Appeals Nos. 1631-1633
\nof 1987 are disposed of by saying that after the  amendments
\nnoted  here in before the Act does not suffer from the\tvice
\nmentioned  in the judgment of the High Court of Bombay.\t The
\nappeals are, therefore, allowed and disposed of accordingly.
\n    In\tthat  view of the matter the challenge made  in\t the
\nspecial leave petitions Nos. 11673-75 of t987 is  dismissed.
\nIn the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no
\norders as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. The
\ntaxes  will  be\t realised in accordance\t with  the  Act\t and
\nnecessary adjustments will be made accordingly.
\nS.L.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2062, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 482 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: MADHUKAR BALKRISHNA BADIYA & ORS. ETC. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":4128,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988"},"wordCount":4128,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988","name":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. ... on 17 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-19T12:01:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-vs-madhukar-balkrishna-badiya-ors-on-17-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc vs Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & Ors. … on 17 August, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61908\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}