MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF POONA ETC. versus BIJLEE PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 14-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

765 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF POONA ETC. 
A 
v. 
BIJLEE PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC. 
September 14, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
B 
Bo111bay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Sections 127(1), (2), 
(3) rJw S. 149 of the Act-Exeniption froni payn1ent of octroi·duty ijuashed-
Whetller proposed repeal of rule 5(8) contrary to the exemption granted-
\. 
Interpretation of Govt. Resolution dated 30-7-68. 
-
The appelloo.t Corporation sometime in the year 1957 invited apphcations 
for a1lotment of plots in the industrial estate guaranteeing that for a period 
of 12 years no octroi duty wi11 be levied as provided in rule 62-B and Hlso 
specifically inserted a clause at item (B) of the conveyances executed by the 
respondents to that effect. Some years later, the appellant passed a resolution 
dated 30-5-68 recommending to the Govt. to bring about an amendment In 
rule 62-B which, inter alia, contained: "octroi rule 5(8) is hereby repealed. 
Provided that notwithstanding such repeal the exemption already granted shall 
continue until the expiry of the respective periods of their grants". However, 
the State Government, while accepting the recommendation of the corporation, 
in para 2 of its resolution dated 30-7-78 "specified 1st September 1968 as the 
date on which its sanction sha11 become operative". The respondents who 
felt that they were adversely affected filed separate writ petitions in the Bombay 
High Court, which were allowed. 
Allowing the appeals by certificate, the Court 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: 1. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 
the 
Bon1bay 
Provincial 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 gives three aJten1ative courses to the Govern-
ment. After the matter is submitted by the Corporation to the Government 
) (1) i.t may refuse to sanction the rules recommended, or (2) it may refer 
f 
back to the Corporation any rule for further consideration or (3) it may sane-
F 
tion the rule as recommended or with certain modifications as it thinks fit. 
There can be no doubt that the Government had the power to make modifi.ca~ 
tions in the recommendation submitted by the Corporation, 
but the express 
provision by which the Government could refer the matter back to the Corpo-
raition is clearly suggestive of the fact that the Government would refer the 
matter to the Corporation if it wanted to modify the proposal. 
[774A-CJ 
G 
Jn the instant case : 
(a) While exercising its power to delete rule 5(8) the Government had the 
following materials before it, (I) It knew that Rule 5(8) bad grat!led exemp-
tion for a period of 10 years to some industrialists, who on the basis of the 
representation made by the Corporation had set up their industries; 
(2) the 
B 
Municipal Corporation had made an eXpress recommendation that while deleting 
rule 5(8) the previous concessions regarding exemption from octroi dvty liiiiSt 
A 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1979] I s.c.R. 
continue, (3) the Government could delete rule 5(8) in the exercise of tile 
powers conferred on it by sub-sections (2) and (5) of section 149 an<l 
:-ub~ 
>ection ( J) of section 455 of the Act. 
!77JE-FJ 
(b) The Government has done nothing of the sort as required by S. 149C~) 
of the Act, but has clearly passed the· order purely in terms of the recommenda-
tion. Therefore, the Government never intended to make any changes in the 
B 
rule recommended by the Corporation particularly because the question of net 
accepting the condition recommended by the Corporation, namely, thnt the 
existing concessions must continue would entail taking away of vested right.'i 
and put the Corporation in a wrong box inasmuch as it v.·ould tha11 hnve '.o 
go back from its Ov.'11 assurance. 
[774B-D] 
2. The Government order dated 30th July, 1968, n1ust he so interpreted as 
C 
to include the proviso recommended by the Corporation while deleting rule 
5(8), namely, that the concessions already granted to the industrialists \\'On!d 
continue. It is true that the Government resolution does not sa-y so in sn m;111y 
words, but having regard to the language in which it was couched and expre,;;s 
reference: to the letter dated 2nd July, 1968 of the Municipal Commiss1oncr 
contained in the order itself which clearly mentions that rule 5(8) should 
11~ 
repealed provided the exemption already granted shall continue until the expiry 
D 
of the respective periOds of their grants, the aforesaid 
condition would 
be 
deemed to be· incl

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