K. C. DAS GUPTA, CJ.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for decision in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been referred to this Bench under Chapter V of the Original Side Rules is whether Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is void under Article 13 of the Constitution of India because of inconsistency with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It appears a distress warrant was issued against the petitioner purporting to be under Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act for realisation of a sum of money said to be due on account of coasolidated rate assessed for premises No. 3, Amratola Lane. It was alleged in the application that before the distress warrant was actually issued, no notice of demand as required under Section 236 of the Calcutta Municipal Act had been served on the petitioner. It was further urged that Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 was ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. After a Rule Nisi was issued, the allegation that the distress warrant had been issued without previous issue and service of notice under Section 236 of the Act was denied by the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document