1962 Supreme(Pat) 15

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
KANHAIYA SINGH, S. N. P. SINGH, JJ.
State of Bihar
Versus
Kamaksha Prasad Sharma
Appeal from Original Decree No.350 of 1958
Decided On : 30-01-1962

Section 15 of the Police Act, 1861, is constitutional and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The apportionment of the cost of the additional police force among the inhabitants must be done in accordance with the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of section 15 of the Police Act. The exemption of certain persons from the payment of the tax must be done in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 15 of the Police Act. The non-service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is fatal to a suit, and the mandatory provisions of section 80 cannot be circumvented on the ground of apprehended imminent danger to property.

Headnote:

POLICE ACT - SECTION 15 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - APPORTIONMENT OF COST OF ADDITIONAL POLICE FORCE - EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PERSONS - VALIDITY - SECTION 80 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - NOTICE - WAIVER - SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The inhabitants of certain villages in Bihar were subjected to various acts of lawlessness, leading to the declaration by the Governor of Bihar under section 15(1) of the Police Act, 1861, that an additional police force would be quartered in those villages at the cost of the inhabitants. The cost of the additional police force was apportioned among the inhabitants, and notices were issued to them to pay the assessed amount. The plaintiffs, representing the inhabitants, filed a suit challenging the legality of the proclamation, the apportionment of the cost, and the imposition of the tax, claiming that section 15 of the Police Act was ultra vires and unconstitutional, and that the imposition of the tax and its apportionment were illegal and void. The defendants, including the State of Bihar, resisted the suit, justifying the quartering of the additional police force and the assessment of the cost, and pleading that section 15 of the Police Act was constitutional. They also contended that the suit was not maintainable due to the non-service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the apportionment of the cost of the additional police force among the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the villages was not legal, and the exemption of certain persons from the payment of the tax was also without authority and illegal. However, the court held that section 15 of the Police Act was constitutional and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The court further held that the non-service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was fatal to the suit, and that the plaintiffs could not circumvent the mandatory provisions of section 80 on the imaginary ground of shortness of time.

Issues: 1. Whether section 15 of the Police Act, 1861, was ultra vires and unconstitutional? 2. Whether the apportionment of the cost of the additional police force among the inhabitants was legal? 3. Whether the exemption of certain persons from the payment of the tax was valid? 4. Whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Police Act, 1861, was held to be constitutional and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the provision for quartering additional police force in disturbed areas and apportioning the cost among the inhabitants was a salutary measure to secure peace and tranquillity, and that the exemption of certain persons from liability to bear the cost was not discriminatory as it could be based on their law-abiding conduct. 2. The apportionment of the cost of the additional police force among the inhabitants was held to be illegal, as it was not done in accordance with the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of section 15 of the Police Act. 3. The exemption of certain persons from the payment of the tax was held to be without authority and illegal, as it was not done in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 15 of the Police Act. 4. The suit was held to be unsustainable in limine due to the non-service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the mandatory provisions of section 80 could not be circumvented on the ground of apprehended imminent danger to property.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.