LexTHE AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. AND ANOTHER versus THE JANAPADA SABHA, CHHINDWARA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Gujarat University, 11hmedabad v. Krishna Rangariath Mudholkar Subba Rao, J. 1962 Septtmber 24. 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. under a statute, s. 38A of the Act which is a conse· quential provision would be valid. For the aforesaid reasons I hold that the Uni- versity was w~ll within its rights in prescribing, by statutes, the said two languages as media of instruc· tion to replace English by stages. . In the result the order of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed with costs of the appeliants here and in the High Court. BY COURT: In accordance with the view of the majority, both the appeals stand dismissed in the manner indicated in the majority judgment, with costs. There will be one set of hearing fee. Appeals dismissed. THE AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THEJANAPADA SABHA, CHHINDWARA (And connected appeals) (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAB GUPTA AND J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Coal Tax-Levy-ValUJity-Writ Petition, if barred by rea ju&icata-Enhanced levy after first imposition-Absence of premous sanction by Local Government-Legality of such levy-- Constitution of India, Arts. 19 (1) (f), 32, 141, 226-Central Provinces Local Self Government Act, 1920 (C. P. IV of 1920), 8. 51(2). The 1st appellant in the first batch of appeals ~>ad filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the nouces. calh~g upon him to pay the tax of 9 pies per ton on coal mcluding coal despatched outside the State of Madhya Pradesh on two grounds, namely, that the levy of the tax by. th~ J.ndepende~~ Mining Board was invalid at the date of its uutial mtposttion and, 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 173 therefore, the respondent Sabha wl,ich was the successor of the Mining Board could not continue the levy an~ also that on a proper construction of s. 51 of the Act, the levy could not be made. Another point natnely, the increase in the rate of tax from the original 3 pies to the 9 pies per ton a.t \1.rhich the tax \Vas demanded \Vas illegal v • .-as sought to be canvassed but was not allowed to be argued hy the Court as it had not been raised in the pctitio11. The \\.Tit petition \Vas rejected. The appellant challenged the levy of the tax for the further periods by way of a writ petition before the High Court of J\.Jadhya Pradt"'sh on grounds distinct and separate from those which had been rejected by this Court. The High Court dis- missed the writ petition on the ground that it.was barred by rrs,judicata by reason of the earlier judgment by this Court. In the case of the other appellants the High Court held that the matter '\.Vas also concluded on the authority of the de:cision of this Court. The appellants in the first batch of appeals came by special leave and also filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the levy. Held, that while the general principle of res-jud·icala app]ies to \'\Tit petitions undrr Art. 32 and Art. 226 of the Constitution, in its application to ~i\.rt. 32 of the Constitution, the doctrine only regulates the manner in which the funda- nu'ntal rights could be f;HCcessfully asserted and does not in any \vay i1npair or affect the content of the fundamental rights. Pandit M.8.M. Sha""'" v. Dr. 8hree Krishna Sinha, [1961] 1 8. C. R. 96, Raj 1,ak8hmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, [1953] S. C.R. 154 and Duryao v. 8tnte of U.P., [1962] l S.C.R. 574, referred to. Constructive rc8-jiulicafa was a crcoture of statute and its application could not Le extended to other proceedings parti- cularly those questioning tax liability for different years. Hrld, further, that the law declared by the Supreme Court which is binding under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India is diat which has been expressly declared and any implied dcclarat1on though binding was subject to revision by this Court when the point was subsequently directly and expressly raised before this Court. Held, further, that the procedure of assessment of tax authorised by the relevant statutory provisions and the Rules could not be said to be a capricious administrative or executive affair so'" to violate Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. 1962 The Amalgamattd Coalfields Ltd. v. The ]anapada Sabha Chhindu·ara 1962 The Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. 1 he Janapada Sabha Chhir1dwara ' 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. Kunnathat Thathunni Moapil Nair v. State of Kera/a, [1961) 3 S. C.R. 77, distinguish
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.