LexTHAROO MAL versus PURAN CHAND PANDEY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 254 THAROO MAL v. PURAN CHAND PANDEY & OTHERS November 29, 1977 [M. H. BEG, c. J. and P. N. BHAGWATI, J.] U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, s. 132(1) vis-a-vis LiJnitation Act, s. 28;_ Section 132(4), whether confined to objections considered by Municipal BoGrd -Section 135(3), scope. The Municipal Board of Pilibhit passed a resolution under the Municipalities Act, imposing a theatre tax of Rs. 25/- per show. The resolution was duly published on 16-5-1972 and objections were invited, but s_ip.ce Ilo objections were received within the time prescribed u/s. 132(1) of the Act, prelun.inary proposals were framed and submitted to the prescribed authority, the commis- sioner of Rohilkhand Division. The proposals were returned to tfie Board tor reconsideration on the ground that the proposed rate of the theatre tax a•ppearea to be too high, and on 28-8-1972 the Board reduced the rate to Rs. 15/- per show, though the publication of the resolution reducing the rates was dispensed with under the proviso to s. 132(2). On 16-9-1972, the petitioner and some other owners of cinema houses, sent their objections to the initial resolution, but as these objections had not been presented for consideration when the two resolutions were passed, the Board refrained from submitting them with the modified proposals to the prescribed authority u/s. 132(4) of the Act. The mcx:lified proposals were sanctioned on 31-10-1972 and were duly converted into rules, published in the Gazette dated 14-4-1973. The appellant moved the High Court; but failed. Dismissing the appeal the Court, HELD : (i) There is a distinction between the period given for tiling objec- tions u/s. 132(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, and the pericxl of limitation prescribed for proceedings before a court or a quasi-judicial authority, \vh.ich on the expiry of the period, confers some rights upon parties not proceeded against, so that the expiry of the prescribed time bars claims against them. · l "he procedure under s. 132(1) is legislative and not quasi-judicial and if the objec- tor does not file his objections within a fortnight, he may lose his nght to object, but his objections will not be invalidated. It is not Jike s. 28 of the Limitation Act operating to extinguish any legal right. [256E, G, H, 257A] Niranjan Lal Bhargava v. State of U.P. 1969 A.L.J. 295, referred to. (2) Section 132(4) covers any objections whatsoever, \Vhether made within a fortnight or beyond a fortnight, provided they are sent in before the matter is submitted to the prescribed authority. In fact, there is no statutory bar against the 'Prescribed authority itself considering the objections which inay be filed before it if the interests of justice so require. [259B-C] (3) The effect of the proviso to s. 132(2) added in 1964, is that, by cl1sp.:ns- ing with even the publication of the mcxlified proposals, no such right ot the appellant is violated as could be considered a condition precedent to the val1d1ty of the proceedings. Nevertheless, if patent injustice has resulted fro1n an irregularity, in the imposition of a tax, s. 135(3) may not cure the irregularity. f259G-H, 260AJ Buland Sugar v. Municipal Board [1965] 1 SCR 970, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1201 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 1-12-76 of the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3090/93. _,,. I THAROO MAL v. PUUN CHAND (Beg, C.J.) 255 Y. S. Chitale and K. J. John for the Appellant. Yogeshwar Prasad, Rani Arora and Meera Bali for the Respondents. The Judgment of the court was delivered by : A BEG, C. J.-The appellaint before us by grant of special leave under Article 13 6 of the Constitution is a partner in a firm carrying on B the business of running a cinema house called "Jai Talkies" in the town of Pilibhit iu · Uttar Pradesh. The municipal Board of Pilibhit passed a resolution on 11th of April, 1971, imposing a theatre tax ,, of Rs. 25/- per show under section 128(1) (iii-a) read with sections 296 and 299 of the Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The resolution wa·s duly published in a Hindi newspaper on 16 May, 1972, as required by section 94(3) read with section c 131(1) (a) of the Act. The preliminary proposals for imposition of j a tax were framed under section 131 of the Act which reads as follows : "
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.