SILIGURI MUNICIPALITY & OTHERS versus AMALENDU DAS & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 06-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
,· 
G 
H 
344 
\ 
~jLIGURI MUNICIP~UTY & OTHERS 
)', 
AMALF.NDU DAS & OTHERS 
. Jaouarr 6 I 984 
(A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKK,IR, JJ.] 
Comtitlllwn of India /950. Articlrs /J(j & ) ]6. 
[ 
High Cmm-Procuding.< wulrr Articlt 2215-Vu/idity of tu.t or kr.r ~""' 
tinntd-Stay. u! rccnv~ry cf 1~-'C o,. /~vy c/aimrd-Fi1cturs to b~ tol/.fll/<'rfd bJ H;,; 
Court bt{ure·gro,rt o{Uu~rim sra.v~ 
Supr~mt Cu~rl-/ntcr/~rtm:e wlrh lnt,r/ocmory ort!~r of Hixh Court grtD~:tq 
stay of rf!Cnvtr.Y of tax-When arf.r;~r. 
Tile appellant Muuic.:ip01lity in it> Appeal by Special U.we impugnoi ll< 
interlocutory order or the High Courl rcstmtnin.:. che ~lunicipaHiy from r..;..'()\(!ir.: 
a graduated consohdate<l r.uc on the unnuai value of the holding' in t<nn<uf c'< 
amendtd provisions in soctioru .i:!J nnd 04 of the llcngal Munic1pal A<l, 19;:, 
amended hy the Bonsai Mumcipal (Amendment) Act, 19SO. ' 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD : J. The H ish Coun •hould not in ~ro~in~ under Ar1iclc 2:!6,! 
I he Con)titution grnnl any "t.ay of recovery qf tuX s.,t\'C unJc..r very . ''"-c~ul 
circumstttncc:, The &r:tnt uf stay in ~uch matlcn, :JlouiJ be an cxc..~rnon and I» 
a rule. P45~1 
Th 1.. 
· 
· 
• 
• 
,. p zuioc• 
2. 
e ..:')' ur unpO~t do·.:~ not bc.'\:omc.; b . .ul a' 'Uun as a \\ nl 
c: 
tbc 
in,lltulc<i to a .. "'il tt.c \alidi l)' of lhc levy. 'fher..: i~ no \\:.trrant for ~rc,umnli .o( 
levy lu b~ rod at the V<ry thre>huiJ or !he l)rC.:t cthng,, The maul purpol< 
[l.J\):nc an int:rim order is tu evolve u ~ork;•bl~ furmuJJ. of d "'or'k:iblc ttrr_J"st" 
nt<llt to !he c."cnl t:llie<l lur by tho dcmaq\h 1>f th~ si!u~uuu. Thu on)} co>fil'lcl>" 
!ion at that jullCturc i, to CH$Ufc that no prcjudo,c is octM~ionL"tl 10 tha: ~tepa): 
zn c""' I he~ ultimat.dy suc-=J. Thi• obie<:l un be :1twio«l hy r«~0""-' · -.1 
Aulhority k't-yi11i •he i•nrn'l Ill ~lvo un ~uJcrwkius 111 n:funJ or •~Ju,tthc "'~ 
.U•liOunt U¥--~oin,t futun: doc;, in the CV\!Ill uf the t:lltin: h,:vy Of a f"UI the~ Nitf 
ulhm:ucly h<ld 10 1>.: in\'alid by zhe Court.· ('45 G·H; 3~1> AI 
. 
3 The 
. 
· 
· 
· 
· 
. 
~,·r\•tol: 
· 
m.un purpo...c of fM11\IOg un Jnlc.c11n IJr\J~r ~~•II) C:\'ohc a . ('(~ 
r~mn~JJ or. a ~orkaql(; arr~ngclllcnt IO !he 'c.rcnl caJi<J fur hy lhO ,~,:IIlii~~ vf ell< 
'tt~111'~11 kcc:pmg IU n11Hd lht! t>n.:.lUITl(ltion rcg-..lrJ.in¥ the tomiiiUthlll~hiJ _ e1t* 
kv~<l~uun and Ill~ vuln.:rahiilly of t~c ch'lll.:nKe, llnly is llfl.kr lhat no zrn:l" ~ 
"'1°'?' " . O<C"J>~on.."<l. The Court ha• th~.,r,.,.e to mo~e a ddi.:~tc t>J]a•., .. • o>JI 
~on,td~~H\¥ the pros and cons uf tho Ol.ttter fe,l 
l.ug~r lmblic ittttrCS' .s 
J<OilJr~OLc-.1 and iohtitutional OlllbJrJ»!tlcllt ;, ,..,.,.r.,..,cJ. [H6H; H7,\} 
• 
.- ~ :.:_=.:.- .;.....;- --
~--· 
l . 
. ; 
~ 
'I 
!I' 
; . 
-: 
L' 
:-,_ 
I ,_ 
\ . 
I~ 
i 
l ,. 
l~ 
r 
SII.IOURT MUNICIPALITY V. A. DAS ( Sc'l!, J.) 
345 
4. The Court ha• to •h.ow aware~~· of .r_he fact 
t~at in the case of a 
ftJ11ic•pllitY it cannot f~ncu~n or mc:cr •L, ~~anc~al oblig:lllons if !ls source of 
~ 
l$ blocked by an tntcnm order rcsrr.unmg ot from rcco,·cring the taxes o.s 
,.-~nue . . 
· · 
Tl 
M 
. • 
1' 
h 
· 
· 
• the impugned provrsoon. • te . umcopa tty as to marntarn es.cnrial civic scr-
~r run public institutioi\S, purcha~ supphC$ and poy the salaries of irs cmplo)c..~ 
'"'"'The grant of an interlocutory order wo uld JY,lr~lne the ac!ministrntion and 
~~tc the entire working. Th,-.c seriou• rnmilica1i0n• were lost si~ht of by The 
Hish Court' in The in.rant cn<c while makrng the imrrned order. [346 CD] 
CIVIL Arrr:tlATE JurHSr>rcnnN: Civi1 Arpcal No. 762. of 1984. 
;\pp~:tl by sr~~ial leave for an interlocutory <>rdcr dated August 
J5. !933 of th~ C:~k-utta High C~urt. 
K. K._ Venugnpol, N.N. Gn~p111 and H K. Puri for the Appellants. 
S.L. A•rc,ja for til~ Rc~pandc nt. 
The Or.!L·r of tli~ Court w.1~ del ivcr~d by 
... 
SE-;, J. T;1i\ 
app~a l 
by sp:cial kavc is directed ag:tinst on 
im~rltr.utory order dated Aur•~'t ::s. 1983 pas,;eu by the Calcutt<J 
Hrgh Court r~straining the Siliguri 1\.Iuni.:ipality, the appellant herein. 
_fr~m ~covering a gr~tdl!Itl~d ct.•nsolid'!tcd rate on th~ annual valu~ of 
th~ holding~ in terms of the amcnd•·d ptovisic-ns in ss. i23 and P4 of 
th·: B~~g:1l M u ni•:ipal Act. I?J:!. a~ amcnd~d b~ the Bengal Municipal 
{t\ :n ~•t.lrn"nt) Act, I 'J~O. . 
· 
W~. arc constmin~J •o m~ke the obsct\'ations which follows us 
~e de, feel di~ma\'cJ a t the tcndcncv on the part of some of the 
fl•gh C'nurt~ to g-rant interloc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.