LexRAZA BULAND SUGAR CO.LTD. versus MUNICIPAL BOARD, RAMPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
970
RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO. LTD.
v.
MUNICIPAL BOARD, RAMPUR
October 30, 1964
<P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., I( N. WANCllOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAll, JlAGHUBAR DAYAL
AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
U.P. M1111icipalilies Act, 1916, n-. 131(3). 94(3) and 135(3)--Muruci-
p;;/ iYc1ter Ta.t--I'roctdure for /e'Vy-Pro'.1isiurzs in relevant Stare for publi-
CC1lio,, of ru.x proposals wlietizer directory for mandatary--Effecr of publi-
Ct1Jion of ilurijicarion itnpvsing tax in Gv1;ernmen1 G:i:elfe.
·me appellant company challenged the imposition of water-tax by the
Ri1mpur ~1unicipa1 Board 1n a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
of Iodia on the ground that the tax had not been in1poscd according to
law inasmuch as the propos:iJs and draft rules had been puh:ished by
the Board in an Crdu paper whereas according to the manda101·y provi-
sions o! s. 131 (3)
r~ad with s. 93(3) of the U.P. Muaicipa!itics Act.
1916. they should have l>ocn published in a Hindi paper. The High Court
dismissed the petition hut granted a Cc'1ificatc under Art. ! 33 ( 1 )( c).
The q ucstions for consideration were whelher the whole of s. 131 ( 3)
y:;v; mandatory, or the part of it requiring publication in the manner Ia.id
down in s. 94( 3) i.e., in a Hindi nev.·spapcr ~·as merely directory; and
whether the publication in the Government Gazette of the notification im-
po5ing the tax wns not conclusive proof, as provided in s. 135(3), of
the prescribed procedure having beea observed.
HElJ) :
(Per
GA.JE:-ODRAGADKAR C. J.,
WANCHOO and
RAGtlliHAR
OA YAt. J J.) ·-( i) Section 131 ( 3) can he divided into two parts-the first
oac providing that the proposal and draft rules for a tax intended to be
imposed shutild be pllhlishc<l for 1thc objectic-ns of tho public, if any, and
the second letying down that 1he publication must he in the manner laid
dO\Vn in s. 94(3).
Considering the objcc1 of the provisio;is for publica-
tion-namely to enable the puhlic to place
its
viewpoint
hefore
the
Board-- -it is necessary to hold that the first part of the section i~ manda-
tory, for to hold otherwise would he to render the whole procedure pre!-
crihed for th.! imposition of taxes nugatory. 'fhe second part of the section
is, ho\vever. merely directory.
What it substantially requires is that the
puhlic<1.tion should be in Hindi in a local paper, and if that is done that
v.·ould be compliance with s. 94(3).
In the instant case publication was
made in Hindi in a local paper which on the evidence seems to have good
circulation in Rampur. ·rhere is no regularly published local Hindi news-
paper.
Tllerc v.-al\, in the circumstances, substantial compliance v.ith the
provision.s of s. 94( 3) ia this case. [977 E-F; 978 D-F; 980 C; 981
A-I!]
(ii) Section 135(3) provides that a aotification of the imposition of
tax in the Government Gazette was conclusive proof that the tax bad
been impooed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Whether such
a aotification will save a tax which bas been imposed without at all
complying with one of the mandatory provisions of the relevant Jaw was
a question that did not directly arise in the case.
In the instant cax the_re
had been compliance with the maadatory part of s. 131 ( 3) and •ubstnnual
compliance with the second part.
Therefore s. 135(3) applied to the ea&e
A
8
c
D
F
G
H
~
·~
~-
•
•
.•
•
•
•
('°'
'
I
1
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
BULAND SUGAR v. MUNICIPAL DOARD (Wanchoo J.)
971
and the objection that the tax was not validly imposed could not suc-
ceed. [983 B-D; 983 D-EJ.
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, [1959] S.C.R. 583, relied on.
State of U,.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastva, [1958] S.C.R. 533 anJ
Berar Swadeshi Vanaspati v. Municipal Committee, Shegaon,
[1962] I
S.C.R. 596, distinguished.
Montreal Street Railway Company v. N"ormandin, (1917) L.R., A.C.
170, Azimulla v. Suraj Kumar Singh, A.LR. (1957) All. 307 and Munkipai
Board, Hapur v. Raghuvendra Kripal, 1960 A.L.J. 185, referred to.
Per HIDAYATULLAH J.-·A Municipal Committee enjoys pov.-crs of
taxation not as a legislature but as a delegate of the legislature.
Taxes
levi<;d by it are in effect levied by the Government. What the Municipa-
lity does in exercise of the delegated power can be effective only if the
conditions laid down with the grant of the power are complied \Vith and
the Government finally approves the tax.
Once the Government aher
giving its approval has notifi~d its imposition in the Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.