CENTURY SPINNING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. versus THE ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 27-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

854 
CENTURY SPINNING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 
LTD_. AND ANR. 
v. 
THE ULHASNAGAR MlJl'UCIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. 
February 27, 1970 
-
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. .N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Constitution of lndla, Art. 226-High Court's Powers---Dismissal in 
limine-Questions of fact-Representations by Public Body___..:.Jf enforceable 
ex-eontractu by a person who acts upon the rewesentations. 
The appellants-companies 
set up their factories within an "Induttrial 
Area··, No octroi duty \Vas payable in respect of goods imported ~by the 
appellants into the Industrial Area· for use in the manufacture of its pro-
ducts. 
The State of Maharashtra constituted :i. Municipality for certain 
villages includin.g t:1e Industrial Area. 
On representations n1ade by 
the 
appellants and other manufacturers, the State proclaimed the exclusion of 
the Industrial Area from the Municipal Jurisdiction. The 
Municipality 
made representations to the 
Sta:c requesting 
that the proclamation, be 
v."ithdra\\'n. agreeing to exempt the factories in the Industrial Area from 
payn1ent of octroi for seven years from the date of the levy. The State 
acceedcd to the rc,:itK'St of the ~Iunicipality. The appellants claimed to 
expand their nclivities 
relying upon the 
~iunicipulity':; 
assurance an<l 
un!1ertaking. 
The ~1aharashtra Iv!unicipalities Act \Vas enacted and the 
respondent-l\.1Iunicipality took over the administration of the former munici-
pality as its suc~sor. Thereafter. the re.s'pondent-Municipalitv sought to 
levy .Jctroi duty on the nppcllant amounting to about 
Rs. 15 lakhs per 
annum. 
The appellants filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
to restrain the respondent-l\1unicipality 
fron1 enforcing the levy o'f 
the 
Octroi. 
The High Court dismissed 
the petition in liniine. In appeal by 
speci:il leaYe. 
HE(D : The case must be remanded to the High Court for being re-
adn1ittcd to its file and dealt \Vith and disposed of according to law. 
The High Court n1ay. in exercise of its discretion. decline to exercise 
its exrra-ordinar\· '. 1risdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. But the 
discretion is judici1l: if the petitioner makes a claim 'vhich is frivolous, 
vexatious. or pri11u1 fncie unjust or \Vhich may not appropriately be true in 
a petition inVoking extraordinary jurisdiction. the Court may decline to 
entertain the petitiun. 
But a party claiming to be aggrieved by the action 
of a public bod~· o:- authority on the plea that the action is unlay.·ful. high-
handed. arbitrary or unjltst is entitled to a hearing of its petition on the 
merits. 
Apparentlv the petition filed by the Company did not raise any 
complicated questions of fuct fo·r deterrnination, and the claim could nOt be 
charnct~rised ns frivolous. vexatious or unjust. 
The High Court has given 
no reason for dismissing the petition in lilnine, and on a consideration o'[ 
the averments in the petition and the materials placed before the Court 
the appellants \1:ere entitled to have its grievance aq:ainst the action of the 
Municipality. which was prinuz facie unjust. tried. 
Merely because a 
question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring 
the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive 
process by a civit suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised 
by the petition in this case are elementary. (858 CF] 
Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals" to .carry out 
representations or facts and promises 
made by them, ret}ribg on which 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CENTURY SPINNING CO· v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (Shah, J.) 855 
other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation 
arising against an individual out of his representation amounting to a pro-
mise may be enforced ex-contractu by a person who acts upon the pro .. 
mises when the la\\· requires that a contract enforceable at law again'St a 
publk: body shall be in certain forn1 or be executed in the manner pres-
cribed by statute and if the contract be not in that form the obligation may 
still be enforced against the body in appropriate cases, in equity, [859 DJ 
If our nascent democracy is to thrive. different standards of conduct 
for the people and the public bodies cannot ordinarily be permitted. 
A 
public body is not exempt from liability to carry out !ts obligation arising 
out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered 
his position to his pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.