LexBABU RAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHW ARI versus ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAR NAGAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BABU RAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHW ARI
A
v.
ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAR NAGAR
August 2, 1968
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM! A!'ID A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
Constitution of India, Art. 2'26--Altcr11a1ive retncdies 1101 availed of-
1/i,::h (.'ourt can still rnterrain writ petition and issue writ. of certiorari
'vhere Tribunal has acrt•d on a provision ol law u·hic:h i.<; ulira vircs and
where natural ju.Y1ice is denied.
The appellant \\'a..; a partncr.;;hip firn1 carrying on the bu..,incss of n1anu-
B
facturing Khandsari Sugar in the District of ~1uzaffarnagar, U.P.
Under
C
s. l 14 of the U.P. l)L~lrict Ho:1nt.; Act X of 1922 .1 Oi_c;lric1 Board had
J>Q\\'cr to levy a taX on circumstances and propcrtv suhjcct 10 certain con-
ditions and restrictions.
ll1c pov:crs of Dio;tnct Board..;, under the afore-
said Act \\'Crc by virtue of the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958 con-
ferred on the Parishads formed under the latter Act. The U.P.
Anlarim
Zila Parishad Act 1958 expired on 31st December.
1959
but its
life
was extended to 3 lst December. 1960 bv
.<\menclin~ Act
No
1 of
1960 \vhich rccei\'ed the aS-"iCnt of the G0vemor on
Januarv 5,
1960.
\Vhcn the taxing olliccr of the Antarim Zila P<irishad ~fuzaff1irnagar suh-
D
jectcd the appefl<1nt to circumstances and property tax for 1959-~6()
the
appellant filed a writ petition in the Jligh Court contending inter
afio
that Amending Act J\;o. I of 1960 could not continue the Act of 1958
hecause the latter had already expired on 31st December, 1959 \Vhile the
former received the consent of the Governor on January 5. 1960.
The
con'\tit111ionali1v of the taxing provisions Y•;is aho challenged.
The \\'ri:
petilion \\'Js tfir,;,mi<:scd hy the High Court on the "olc ground that
the
E
rcmedv hy \Vav of appeal under s. 128 t)f the District Bo:ird<: Act J 922.
had not heen exhausted. The U.P. Kshetra Samitis and
Zila
Parishads
Adhiniyam of 1961 (U.P. Act ~2 of 1961) was
passed
in
November.
1961.
Acting under it the tax.ing officer of 1he Zila Parishad suhjected
the appellant to circumstances and properl'y lax for the year 1961-6:!
'vithout givin!! anv notice or inviting objections.
In respect of this asse'\<;-
mcn1 also the appellant filed a \vrit petition in the Hi!!h Court pleading
denial of natural ju~ticc as \\"ell :t'i challeng:in,g the con..,titution;.ility of the
F
taxing. provisions.
This petition \'."as :ilso dismtssccl on the san1e ~ound
:is the c:irlicr one. The ;1ppellant came to thi'i Court.
HFIJ) : The rul(' of exh~Hl''\lion o'f st1tutorv rcmedicc; brf(1rc a \\'rit
ic; gr,1nted is n n1le of self impO<\cd limitation. a "n1le of policy :-ind dio;crc·
tion rather than a rule of la\\1 and the court may therefore in cxception<ll
ca(,e" issue a \vrit such as a writ of certiorari nohvith.:;f:indinc:
the
L1ct
that the statutory -remedies have not hcen exhansted. f'.522 Cl '
G
State of Utfar Pradrsli v. Mo'1a111111ad Noolt. f19581 S.C.R. 596. 605.
relied on.
111erc arc at lca.<;t t\\'O v.·ell reco!!niscd exception<: to !he doctrine ,,-ith
reeard to the exhaustion o'f st:itutorv reme,li('s.
Jn the fir.c:t place ii i'i
\\.·Cll-o;cttled that where procc<'din!!S a·rc taken hcforc a Trihun:-il under a
orovision of la\Y. which ic; ultra
vire.~. it i<: open to a
p:-irt~·
aggriC\'Cd
H
therchv to move the J-tigh Court under Art. '.!:!6 for issuing appr0priatc
"'·rits for qu;"tshin~ them on the .!!round that they arc incomoetent. \~'ithout
hi.(, hcing ohligcd to \Vait until thO"c proceeding.:;
run their
full
c(1u~c.
[521 CJ
A
B
c
D
E
,.
F
G
H
BABU RAM v. ZILA PARISHAD (Ramaswami, J.)
519
Carl Still G. M. B. H. v. State of Bihar, A.LR. 1961 S.C. 1615 and
The Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 603,
relied on.
In the second place the doctrine bas no application in a case \Vhere
the impugned order has been made in violation of the principle of natural
justice. [523 DJ
State of Uuar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, [1958] S.C.R. 596, 605,
referred to.
In the present case in view of the allegations- of the apJ?ella~t that the
taxing provisions were ultra vires and that there was a v1olat1on of the
principles of natural justice the High Court was in error in summarily
dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had an alter-
native remedy of statutory appeal. The High Court was no doubt vested
with a discretion but in the present case the discretion had
nC>t
been Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.