K.S. Hegde, J.—The petitioners, in these 54 petitions, who are building owners in this State, seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Mysore to refrain from enforcing on them the provisions of the Mysore Buildings Tax Act, 1962 (Mysore Act No. 4 of 1963)(to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). after declaring the same as void and inoperative.

(2) The "Act" received the assent of the Governor on the 8th of January 1963 and it came into force on the 1st January 1964. Under S. 4 of the "Act" all buildings as defined in the "Act", in the towns mentioned in Schedule I to the "Act", stand charged with 'Building Tax' in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule II to the "Act". The "Act" provides a machinery for quantification of the charge and for the collection of the tax assessed. In the "Act" there are provisions for appeal, second appeal and revision. The "Act' confers on the Government power to make rules to carry out the purposes of the "Act". Accordingly rules have been made and published.

(3) The validity of the "Act" was assailed on various grounds. It was contended that in pith and substance, though not in form, the "Act" imposed tax on the assessee's income or in the alternative on the capital value of his assets in the form of buildings, and, therefore, the "Act" is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was next contended that the "Act" is a colorable piece of legislation as the motive in enacting the same was not to tax buildings but to take away a portion of the fabulous unearned income made by speculators and tax dodgers. It was said that S. 4 of the "Act", the charging section, is vague and unenforceable and consequently it is inoperative and if that section is struck down as being vague and unenforceable, as it should be, the other provisions in the "Act' being machinery provisions will have no independent existence and, therefore, the entire "Act" has to be held to be inoperative.

The power granted to the Government to alter the first schedule was assailed on the ground that it is a delegation of essential legislative function and hence void. S. 3(2) of the "Act" is said to be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. The validity of the levy under the "Act" was challenged on the ground that it amounted to double taxation which we were told is not permissible under law. The strongest attack on the "Act" was on the ground that the levy under it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Some of the petitioners contended that the levy in question in so far as it places restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within the State is opposed to Art. 304(b) of the Constitution as no previous sanction of the President was obtained for introducing the Bill leading up to the "Act".

(4) In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri. N.S. Bharath, Budget Officer and Deputy Secretary to Government, Finance Department, he has denied the various contentions taken by the petitioners in the affidavits filed in support of their petitions. He has asserted that the impugned "Act" was enacted by the Legislature in pursuance of the legislative powers available to it under Entry 49 of the State List. According to him, the tax in question is not and was not intended to be a tax on income or capital assets of the assessee falling under either Entry 82 or Entry 86 of the Union List. He has denied that the legislation in question is a colorable piece of legislation. According to him the scheme of the " Act" is to levy tax on buildings on the aggregate floorage of all buildings owned by a person in any "rating area". He has denied that all or any of the provisions contained in the "Act" are opposed to the equality clause in the Constitution. According to him, the "rating area" was decided on the basis of the population as found in the latest census. He has denied that the power conferred on the State under S. 32 amounts to a delegation of essential legislative function.

(5) From t