MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR versus KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 25-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR 
v. 
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMIT! AND ANR. 
\ .. 
JANUARY 25, 1990 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956: Section 415 "Anything 
done or intended to be done under the Act"-1nterpretation of-'Local 
' 
Authority'-Refusal to pay taxes-Whether obligatory on Corporation 
to refer dispute to Government. 
c 
M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961: Section 334. Difference between 
section 415 of 1956 Act and Section 334of1961 Act explained. 
D 
M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973: Section 7 Krishi Upaj 
)..
Mandi Samiti-Whether a local authority. 
The appellant-Corporation assessed property tax in respect of 
bnildings belonging to the respondent-Market Committee, which 
refnsed to pay the same. Proceedings were commenced for recovery of 
J 
E 
the dues. The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 of 
the Constitution for quashing the recovery proceedings. 
The High Court following its earlier decision arising under Sec-
lion 334 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 allowed the petition, 
F 
quashed the recovery proceedings and directed the Corporation to refer 
~ 
the dispute to the Government under Section 415 of the M.P. Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1956. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the Corporation, appealed to 
this court. 
~
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The assessment of tax or demand of any fees by the 
Corporation under the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation 
.., 
H 
Act, 1956 -could fall within the term "anything done or intended to be 
done under the Act" as provided under Section 415 of the Act. Even 
144 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. JABALPUR v. MANDI SAMIT! 
145 
r~fusal of the Corporation to consider the objections against assessment A 
and recovery of tax or fees could also be considered as "anything done 
or intended to be done under the Act". But section 415 does not provide 
that the Corporation has to move the Government when the local au-
thority has refused to pay the tax or fees levied and demanded. [148G-
H; 149A] 
B 
2. The structnre of section 415 of the M.P. Municipal Corpora-
tion Act, 1956 is different from section 334 of the M.P. Municipalities 
Act, 1961. Section 415 speaks of dispute between .the C<irporation and 
local authority as regards anything doue or to be doue under the Act. 
And such a dispute shall be referred to the Government for decision. 
Section 334 refers to a dispute on a matter in which the Municipal 
Council-and local authority are jointly interested and it states that such C 
dispute shall be referred to the State Government for decision. Section 
334 does not refer to the dispute as regards "anything done or to be 
done under the Act." Section 415 does not speak of any dispute in which 
the Corporation and the local authority are jointly interested. There are 
no rules framed for operation of section 415 while under section 334 the D 
State Government has framed Rules. In view of these differences the 
. view taken by the High Court that the Corporation must take steps to 
resolve the dispute cannot be justified. It has apparently no support 
either from the terms of section· 415, or from any rules framed for the 
purpose. Therefore, the recovery proceedings should not have been 
quashed by the High Court. And the Corporation should not have been E 
directed to refer the dispute to the Government under section 415 of the 
M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. [ ISOF -H; 15 IA] 
Jawahar Krishi Upaj Mandhi Samiti Gadarwara & Anr. v . .Munic-
ipal Committee Gadarwara & Anr. Misc. -Petition No. 994 of 1981 
decided by the M.P. High Court on 5.5.1983, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 480 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.85 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1235 of 1984. 
D.N. Mukherjee and Ranjan Mukherjee for the Appellant. 
S.S. Khanduja, Yashpal Dingra and Baldev Kishan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by leave from a 
judgment of the M.P. High Court concerns the scope of Section 415 of 
the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The circumstances can be shortly stated. 
Within the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation limits, there is a 
'Mandi' established under the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 
1973 ('Adhiniyam') covering an area of 5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.