While some bureaucrats and police officials believe imposition of the tax will help buy peace in the town, their political superiors, whatever be their party loyalty, reportedly consider this too expensive a bargain to risk antagonising the majority when the trouble-makers themselves are a handful in number.

Section 50 of the Bombay Police Act allows the administration to slap the punitive tax on any trouble-prone area and is governed by the logic that monetary punishments will deter habitual offenders and potential miscreants from taking part in riots or colluding with rioters.

The money thus recovered is supposed to offset the expenses incurred in maintaining law and order; in Bardoli, last month, for instance, the expenditure on deploying the SRP and other personnel stood at Rs 50 lakhs.

Despite its powers, the tax has been applied very selectively in the country: once in Godhra in the 1970s and also in parts of Maharashtra and Bihar.

The tax proposal first came up for consideration around October 14, in the wake of a recent series of incidents of communal violence in the town. Surat Collector R M Shah even forwarded the proposal to the State government. ``The State government is actively considering the proposal'', he said.

Like Shah, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) P G Ramrakhiani is all for the levy. ``Bureaucrats are always in favour of such proposals. But the final decision rests with the government'', he told Express Newsline.

That decision, if Minister of State for Home Haren Pandya's statements are anything to go by, will be in the negative. Though the proposal is yet to reach him and ``the final decision will be taken only after studying it properly, the government is aware of the disadvantages'', he said.

``Only those who create disturbances should be punished. Why should a large majority of innocents be penalised when the trouble-makers can be counted on one's fingertips?'', Pandya said.

If cleared by the government, a team of revenue and police officials will decide the involvement of individuals in communal offences. The tax -- two to 20 times the house tax paid by the person -- may be either imposed on habitual individual offenders, or on pockets or the entire town. To be initially introduced for an year, the time-frame can be extended indefinitely.

Admitting he was aware of the grey areas, Shah said the administration could face problems while fixing the responsibility and recovering the tax, as leaders of both communities are against its introduction.

A senior police officer, too, pointed out, ``It is difficult to work out the modalities and the tax may well boomerang on the administration.'' Another senior officer, however, said, ``Unprecedented steps have to be taken in unprecedented situations. Who can say, may be the tax will prove to be beneficial''.