LexTHE MUNICIPALITY OF ANAND versus STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1141
Pr.,,..tlt• N:tth
T•l•qtiM
v.
8,rt; Rtn1i«n S"'U'
,..,,., J.
1961
366
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (l9tl2] SUP!'"
The e.rgument the.t this Court ga.ve Specie.I Lea.ve
in the case of Pre.mode Ra.njan Sarkar and there·
fore there were points of importance is, in the cir·
cums ta.noes of this case, a neutral circumstance and
that fact ce.nnot be used as a point in favour of the
!espondent.
In these circumstanoes, we are of the opinion
that thf'I bringing or the fresh compla.int is a gross
abuse of the process of the Court and is not with
the object of furthering the interests of justice.
In regard to the power of reference to a larger
Bench, we are in agreement with S. K. Da8, J., and
in the circumetancea it is unnecessary to erpre88 an
opinion as to the applicability of s. 196A Criminal
Procedure .oode to the facts of this e&ee.
For these reMone we allow the appeals, set
a.side the order of the High Court and of the learned
Chief Presidency Magistrate. and diemisa the
oomplaint.
Bv CoURT : In accordance with the judgment
of the' majority, the appeal is allowed.
A pptal allotDtd.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANAND
STATE OF BOMBAY
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., A. K. SARKAR, K. c. ·DAS
0Ul'TA, N.
R~AGOPA.LA AYYANOAR and J. R.
MUDHOLEiR, JJ.)
OrJroi
T...,_l"'J>OlilW.
by MHicipal.it11-0rck• by
Gow"'""'"'
pro'ftihUi"'1
i•~V
aliditv
of-Bo,..ba11
Dia/.riQ Jt1.,&iciptilAcl, 1901 (Boa. t:/ 1901), •· 69-00Mlit•
tio.,. of lt&dia, Art. U.
~
Mirr folloWiog the prooed~ prtteribed by the Bombay
Dl1trict Municii-1 Act, 1901, and al'lrr obtaining the requisite
oanction of the Government, the apptllant lm)><*d an octroi
tax on milk brought within itl limlta for conmmption, uae or
aale therein.
Shortly afterward1 the Government passed an
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOHTS
367
order directing that the octroi ta« shall not he leviable by
the appellant. The appellant contented that the Governmen_t
had no power to c0ntrol the irriposition of the tax once it
had been properly imposed.
Held, that the Government was competent under s. 59 of
the Act to pass the order.
Section 59 provide l that snhject
to any general or speCial orders which the Sllte Government
may make, a 1funicipality may Himpose" t1'e tax after foll~w ..
ing the procedure laid down and after ohtaining the S;\IlCtton
of the Government.
Th~ word "impose" in s. 59 meant the
actual levy of the tax aft<r authority to levy it had been
acquired by rules duly made and sanctioned and this imposi-
tion was subjt:"ct to the general or speci.:i.l orders of the Govern-
ment. The general and special orders under s. 59 could not
be confined to orders under s. 73 which gave. the Govern-
ment po\ver to suspend the tax in certain cases.
Held, further, that the order of the Government was
not
di•criminatory.
Subsequently
the Government had
prohibited
all m_unicipaJities
from· levving octroi tax on
milk.
For the same reason no question of mala ,r1:des could
arise.
Per Ayyangar, ].-Imposition of tax was a continuing
power eriving vitality from the power of the authority to
impose it.
The power of the Government to issue special
or general order under s. 59 was
therefore not exhaust('d
after ''imposition'' of the tax.
There were provisions in
ss. 47, 73 and 74 for other contingencies but except for the
opening words of s. 59 there was no provision to enabl.e· Govern-
ment to intervene in cases where the continued levy was
against puhlic interest. The opening words of s . .5Q clothed
the Government with power to direct a municip11ity to
desist from imposing a tax.
CrVIL APPELLATE Jun1sDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 211 of 19.'i6.
Appeal from"the judgment and order dated
July 19, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in SpPcial
Civil application No. 976 of 1955.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, 8. N. Andley, Ramesh-
war Nath and P_ L. Vohra, for the appellant.
M . . C.
Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-Gene:ral of India and B.
Sen, for respondent No. l.
T'i 1halbhai B. Patel and /. N. Shroff, for
respon lent No. 2.
1961
The Municlpality
of Anond
v.
State of Bombay
lldl
TJ,. M..,,i<i1<lil.1
•f A•cnd
v.
SW. •f Bom~
Sarbr,J.
368
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
1961. December 21. The Judgment of Sinha
C. J., Sarkar, Dae Gupta and MudholkAr JJ., was
delivered by Sarkar J. Ayyangar J., delivered a
separate judgment.
SARKAR J.-The appellant is a City Municipality
within the meanin~ of the BomExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.