CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE versus KESORAM INDUSTRIES AND COTTON MILLS LTD. DUNLOP INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 08-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE 
v. 
KESORAM INDUSTRIES AND COTTON MILLS LTD. 
DUNLOP INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 8, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
City of Ban!(alore Corporation Act, 1949: Section 98. Octroi-
Levy of-Consideration of objections by the Corporation against the 
levy-Court-Whether can examine the manner of consideration. 
Taxation-Essentials of valid taxation-What are-Procedure for 
imposition of tax-Court-Whether to presume compliance with-Non-
compliance with condition-Precedent of levy of tax-Burden ofproof-
On whom. 
Words and phrases: 'Consideraiion'-Meaning of. 
The City Corporation of Bangalore invited objections from the 
public to the proposed levy of octroi on certain items. In a meeting of 
the Corporation after placing the objections on the Table and circulat-
ing the Notes of the Commissioner analysing the objections, a unani-
mous resolution was passed levying the octroi. 
The respondents challenged the validity of the Resolution con-
tending that it was passed in violation of Section 98(1) of the City of 
Bangalore Corporation Act, 1949. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The High Court declared the Resolution invalid holding that 
F 
because of shortage of time, the condition precedent for passing the 
resolution i.e. real consideration of the objections was not satisfied. 
Hence these appeals by the Corporation. 
Setting aside the judgment of the High Court and allowing the 
appeals, this Court, 
G 
HELD: I.' Taxation in order to be valid must not only be 
authorised by a statute, but also be levied or collected in strict con-
formity with the statute which authorises it .. Where a condition-precedent 
is laid down for statutory power being exercised it _must _be futnlled 
before a sub-ordinate authority can·exercise·deiegated power,· When the 
H 
443 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A statute requires that delegated power may be exercised on fulfilment of 
certain conditions precedent, the Court would presume the regularity 
of the order including the fulfilment of the condition precedent. It is for 
the party who challenged the legality to show that the condition prece-
dent was not in fact complied with by the authority. {446H; 447B] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. The Municipal Administration 1s coordinated to secure the 
vital interest of the general public. It is the function of the representa-
tive body to ascertain the local opinion and decide thereon before 
imposition of the tax. It has, therefore, to be assumed that local rep-
resentatives who had taken note of the objections received in pursuance 
of the notice published have consciously reached the decision. Once it is 
clear that there had been consideration of the objection, it is not for the 
Court to examine the manner in which the legislative will had been 
indicated. [447C-D] 
3. The Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the 
reasons that goes into the decision or the motive that induced· the 
delegated authority to exercise its powers. No judicial duty is laid on the 
authority in discharge of the statutory obligations, and, therefore, the 
only question to be examined is whether the statutory provisions have 
been complied with. [447H; 448A] 
4. The High Court was not justified in assuming from the time 
factor alone that there could not have been a consideration of the objec-
tions. It is not the function of the Court to probe into the details of the 
discussions and the deliberations before legislative will is seen expressed 
by passing the resolution. The connotation of the word 'consideration' 
occuring in sub-section ( 1) of Section 98 comprehends 'taking note of' 
or 'paying heed to' depending upon the nature of the subject. It may he 
open to the councillors to express their views even within the limited time 
available. No standard can he prescribed in such matters. When it is 
shown that the council had the opportunity to consider the objections 
received, it has to be deemed, that they had taken note of the same 
before reaching a decision. [448H; 449A-B] 
Municipal Board, Hapur v. Raghuvendra Kripal and Others, 
[1966] 1 S.C.R. 956; Sundarjas Kanya/al Bhatija & Ors. etc. v. The 
Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors., [1989] 3 Judgment Today 57; 
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Limited v. The State of U.P. and Others, 
[1962] 1 S.C.R. 422; Copa! Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 
H Another, A.I.R, 1964 S.C. 370, followed. 
CITY OF BANGALORE v. KESORAM INDUSTRIES [F ATHIMA BEE 

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