FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 01-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 2000 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Municipalities: 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911--Section 67-Amendments of Assessment 
C list--Powers of Municipal Committee-Requirement of giving notice to person 
likely to be affected by proposed amendment-A vague and unspecific notice 
neither stating reason nor ground for amending assessment list-Non 
compliance of statutory requirement-Order amending assessment list held 
unsustainable. 
D 
By a notice issued under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 
the Municipal Committee amended the assessment list, enhancing the 
property tax of a godown, stating that the previous assessment list was prepared 
under the mistaken impression about the capacity of the godown. The Food 
Corporation of India challenged the order amending the assessment list in 
E respect of its godown. However, the order of revision was confirmed in appeal. 
The Writ Petition filed by the Corporation for quashing the orders passed by 
the statutory authorities was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal 
F 
The appellant Corporation contended that the notice seeking revision 
of the assessment list was vague and lacked particulars and had been issued 
without application of mind to the relevant factors and that the revision of the 
tax had been made without ascertaining the capacity of the godown which had 
not undergone any change in structure or capacity since the last assessment. 
G 
The respondent Municipal Committee supporting the order of amended/ 
revised assessment submitted that the power to amend/revise the assessment 
list is specifically vested in the Municipal Committee and the amendment in 
the assessment list was made since the previous assessment in respect of the 
godown as such had been prepared on erroneous basis relating to the capacity 
H of the godown and the rate of rent per bag. 
276 
F.C.I. v. STATE 
277 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While vesting the power in the Committee to amend an 
assessment list, the Legislature has taken care to specify the circumstances 
in and the grounds on which such amendment may be made; it has also laid 
down the manner in which such amendment or revision of the assessment 
A 
list is to be made. Care has also been taken to comply with principles of natural B 
justice by making provision for giving notice to the person who is likely to be 
affected by the proposed amendment giving him not less than a month's time 
to tender objection, if any, to the Committee and allowing him an opportunity 
of being heard in support of the objections raised. Notice to the affected person 
mandated in the section is not an empty formality, it is meant for a purpose. C 
A vague and unspecific notice will not provide reasonable opportunity to the 
noticee to file objection meeting the reasons/grounds on which the amendment 
of t~e assessment list is proposed to be made. Such a notice cannot be taken 
to be complying with the statutory requirement. [283-C, D, E, Fl 
1.2. In the instant case, the notice neither states the reason for/or the D 
grounds on which the amendment is proposed to be made nor does it indicate 
any material on the basis of which the revision as stated in the notice is 
proposed to be made. [283-F-Gl 
1.3. The Committee is not sure on which ground it proposes to proceed E 
for amending the assessment list. Such a notice not only does not comply 
with the statutory requirements, it also defeats the very purpose of the statutory 
provisions. [284-Al 
1.4. Regarding the question of increase of the capacity of the godown in 
question and rate of rent, neither the discussions in the orders under challenge p 
indicate any basis for increasing the capacity of the godown from 1,84,000 to 
2,06,656 bags, nor there is any primary material in support of the order. Notice 
was vague and it had been issued without due application of mind and the 
grounds stated in the order are based on no material. (284-B, q 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7423 of 1996. G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.94 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C. W.P. No. 12289of1994. 
Y. Prabhakar Rao for the Appellant. 
H 
278 
SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SliPP. 5 S.C.R 
A 
Ajay Majithia, Manu Beri and S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. The legality and validity of the order amending 
the 

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