GULABCHAND BAPALAL MODI versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD CITY

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 04-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'942 
GULABCHAND BAPALAL MODI 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD CITY 
March 4, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT AND c. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Bombay Provincial ,Municipal Corporation Act, 59 of 1949, J. 129 of 
Act whether bad for excessive delegation and absence of 'guidelines-
Rule 10 of Taxation Rules whether mandatory .or directory-Maintenanc• 
of ward-wise assessment books whether essential-Tax levied on basis of 
.one assessment book for whole Municipal area whether invalid-Effect of 
'"'· 13, 15 and 19 under the Act, on tlie interpretation of r. 10. 
The appellant was owner of immovable property situate within the 
limits of the municipal corporation, Ahmedabad City. 
Under the power 
reserved to it by s. 127 of the Act the Corporation served on the appellant 
as also on the other rate payers, bills and demand notices for payment 
of property tax in respect of the assessment year 1962-63. These were chal-
lenged by the appellant and also certain other rate payers in writ petitions 
before the High Court. The High Court inter alia held (i) that s. 129 
-0! the Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation by reason 
of the fact that no maximum rate of tax was laid down; (ii) that it was 
permissible under r. 10 to maintain only one asses~ment book and the 
levy could not be held invalid on the ground that ward-wise assessment 
books as .cor.templated by r'r. 13, 15 and 19 were n-0t maintained. 
In 
appeal to this Court by certificate, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : The High Court rightly held that the charging sections of 
E 
the Act were not without guidelines. 
The assessment and levy of the 
property taxes have to be in conformity with .. the Act and the rules. 
These rules contain inter alia Taxation Rules which are part c~ the Act. 
Section 454, no doubt, empowers the corporation to amend, alter and 
add to those rules but such power is made under s. 455 subject to sanction 
of the State Government. 
Under s. 456 the State Government can at 
any time require the Corporation to make rules under s. 454 in 1respect of 
any purpose or matter specified in s. 457 which includes item "Municipal 
F 
Taxes-The assessment and recovery of Municipal Taxes." Although the 
Act did not during the relevant period prescribe the maximum rate at 
which the property taxes could be raised, the ultimate control for raising 
them was with the councillors responsible to the people. 
It \\·as difficult 
therefore to sustain the plea that the power to levy the property tax was 
so unbridled as to make it possible for the Corporation to levy it in an 
arbitrary manner or extent. [951 G 852 Bl 
G 
The proposition that \vhen a provision requiring sanction of the Gov .. 
ernment to the maximum rate fixed bv the Corporation is absent. the rest 
of the factors which exist in the Aci lose their efficacy and cease to be 
guidelines cannot be accepted. 
Further. if the Corporation has the 
flexibility of power given to it in fixi~!_! .the rates. the State Leg_islature .ca!! 
at any moment withdraw that flex1b1htv by fixmg the maximum hm1t 
up to which the Corporation can tax. 
Indeed the State Legislature had 
done so by s. 4 of the Gujarat Act. 8 of ! 968. In view of the decisions 
H 
of this Court it is not possible to agree with the contention that the Act 
conferred on the Corporation such arbitran: and uncontrolled power as 
to render such conferment an excessive delegation. (954 F-G] 
• 
• 
A 
B 
BAPALAL v. MUNIC. CORP. AHMEDABAD (She/at, J.) 
943 
Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 477, Muni-
cipal Corporation of the Cill"! of Ahmedanwd v. Zaveri Keshavla/, 6 Guj. 
L.R. 701, Wes~ern India Theatres Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the 
City of Poona, (1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 71, Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. 
Madhya Pradesh, (1959] 
S.C.R. 427 and Devi Das 
v. Punjab [1967] 
3 S.C.R. 557, referred to. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bir/a Mills, [1968) 3 S.C.R. 251 
followed. 
c 
(2) The tax levied on the basis of ooe assessment book was not in-
valid, Rule 10 differs from s. 157 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation 
Act, 1888, in that, whereas, it gives an option to the Commissioner either 
to maintain one assessment book for the entire city or separate assessment 
books, Sec. 157 gave no .such option and provided only for ward assess-
ment-book which collectively constituted, as in r. 10(2), "the assessment 
book". 
The legislature deliberately made a departure from s. 157 by 
leaving it to the discretion of the Commi

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