LexMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAICHUR versus AMAR CHAND PRASANNA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
87
A
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAICHUR
v.
AMAR CHAND PRASANNA ETC.
August l, 1967
B
[J. c. SHAH AND s. M. S!KRI, JJ.]
Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964, ss. 57, 80(5), 94, 95, 96, 97, 123(1),
324(4) and (5}-Resolution levying1 octToi wh~ther can. be adopte~
by confirmation of resolution passed by Standing C?mm1~ee-Mod1-
fication in resolution whether can be adopted by circulation among
members and subsequent confirmation by general body-Modi-
fication in model bye-laws must comply with s. 324(4) and (5)-De-
C feet in some of the bye-laws does not make the rest of the bye4aws
unenforceable.
On June 11, 1965, the Standing Committee of the Raichur Muni-
cipal Council resolved to levy octroi duty according to Sch. II under
s. 94 of the Mysore Municipalities Act,
1964. It was rec'.ite~ in
the resolution that the confirmation of the general body be obtamed.
The genera? body unanimously approved the resolution of the
D Standing Committee.' On October 27, 1965 the notification under
s. 95 of the Act inviting objections from the public was published; 110
objections were received. On February 26, 1966 there was a special
general body meeting and it was resolved to levy octroi with effect
from April I, 1966. This resolution was however amended by modi-
fication of· its second paragraph on March 25, 1966. Approval to this
modification was obtained at first by circulation to the members on
March 3L, 1966 the minutes of the meeting dated February 26, 1966
E and the adoption of the resolution modifying the second paragraph
by circulation on March 25, 1966, were read, heard and confirmed
unanimously. As required by s. 123 of the Act the model bye-laws
framed by Government were adopted but the table of rates in model
bye-law 16 'relating to the levy of storage fee and charges on goods
placed in the bonded warehouses was left blank. The. rates were
fixed by the Council by its resolution of March 31, 1966. On April 16,
1966 sanction of the Government under s. 96 of the Act to the levy
p of octroi and the adoption of model bye-laws was given and on May
3, 1966, the notification under s. 97 of the Act imposing octroi duty
under Sch. II and adopting the bye-Jaws was published. The resploI!-
dents who were dealers in cloth in Raichur moved the High Court
of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held
that though octroi had been properly levied its collection was unau-
thorised owing to defects in the bye-laws adopted. The municipality
G appealed. The following questions fell for consideration: (i) whe-
ther the resolution levying the octroi and the subsequent modifica'
tion of the said resolution were procedurally valid (ii) whether the
fixation of rates for the purpose of model bye-law 16 was validly
made. the procedure in s. 324('4) and (5) not having been followed·
(iii) whether the bye-raws were unenforceable fur the reason that
they did not fix the 'time for the PUrPOSe of bye-laws 23 27 and 28
and did not give a list of articles for the purpose of bye-laws 33
B to 36.
HELD: (i) The resolution of the Standing Committee selecting
octroi tax for imposition -exi;>ressly stated that confirmation of the
iieneral body would be obtained. and such confirmation was actual
ly obtained, It could not in the circumstances be contended that
88
SUl'REV!i COURT REPORTS
[1968] l li.C.R.
there was no valid resolution by the Municipal Council under s. 94 A
selecting octroi duty for imposition. [92F-HJ
The resolution modifying the original resolution dated February
26 1966 was no doubt passed by cir'eulation but later the said circu-
lation was "read heard and confirmed unanimously" by the general
body Under s. 80(5) any irregularity not affecting the merit of the
case 'can be cured and s. 97(2) prohibits enquiry into the regularity B
of the procedure by which a tax has been imposed after a notice
unler s 97 (1) is published. No material had been placed before the
Court to show that in making the modification s. 57 had not been
complied with. f93A-Dl
Municipab Board, Hapur v. Raghuvendra Kripal & Ors., [1966)
1 S.C.R. 950, relied on.
(ii) If bye-laws in respect of the matters specified in cl. (m) of C
s. 324(1) are made and submitted for sanction or model bye-laws
framed by the Government for thOSe purposes are adopted, the re-
quirements of s. 123(1) wiJI be satisfied, and if Government sanctioll8
the resolution of the Municipal Council imposing octroi duty under
s. 97(1) andExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.