HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. DAS GUPTA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
SWADESHI INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ADMINISTRATOR PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 160 Of 1957 With Civil Rule No. 1794 (M) Of 1957
Decided On : MAY 13, 1958
BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT - SECTION 148, 149, 553, 554 - ASSESSMENT OF TAXES - REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT - HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW - COMPETENCY OF ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS OF COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION 149 - PROVISO TO SECTION 149 - APPLICATION OF - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - GRANT OF.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a company, filed a suit against the respondent, the Administrator of Panihati Municipality, for a declaration that the quarterly tax assessed in respect of the appellant's holding was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The appellant also sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from realizing quarterly taxes at the increased rate or enforcing the same. The appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed. The amended plaint raised the issue of whether the appeal against the assessment had been dealt with by an authority competent under the law to deal with it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the question of whether the Administrator was competent to perform the functions of the committee under Section 149 of the Bengal Municipal Act was a matter that required serious consideration. The court also held that the question of whether the functioning of the Administrator as the committee under Section 149 would violate the rule in the proviso to that section could not be dismissed outright as baseless but required close and careful consideration.
Issues: 1. Whether the Administrator was competent to perform the functions of the committee under Section 149 of the Bengal Municipal Act. 2. Whether the functioning of the Administrator as the committee under Section 149 would violate the rule in the proviso to that section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 554 of the Bengal Municipal Act, which lays down the consequences which shall ensue when an order of supersession has been made under Section 553, make the Administrator competent to perform the functions of the Chairman and of all the Commissioners as well as of the Chairman and some of the Commissioners. However, the court also held that the question of whether the words, "by the Chairman and by the Commissioners" mean the Chairman and all the Commissioners and also the Chairman and some of the Commissioners, required consideration. The court further held that the question of whether the functioning of the Administrator as the committee under Section 149 would violate the special rule laid down in the proviso that "no Commissioner of the ward from which the application is made shall take part in the hearing or determination of such application" required close and careful consideration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the prayer for temporary injunction be allowed and that the respondent be restrained, pending the disposal of the suit, from realizing rates on the basis of the increased assessment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, refusing a prayer for temporary injunction pending the disposal of a suit which had been instituted by the present appellant for a declaration that the quarterly tax assessed in respect of the appellant's holding No. 220 of Mahalla Bhowanipore in Panihati was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the Administrator of Panihati Municipality from realising quarterly taxes at this rate or enforcing the same. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been of the view that there was nothing on the record to find prima facie that the assessment made by the defendant was illegal or without jurisdiction; that the petition made by the plaintiff before the Review Committee was duly disposed of and the assessment prima facie appeared, therefore, to be lawful and final. He was also of the opinion that if the injunction was granted and realisation of the dues of the municipality was kept in abeyance, administration would suffer and the local people would be prejudicially affected; but in case the plaintiff succeeds, the money realised might be set off against future dues of the municipality. In this view, he rejected the prayer for temporary injunction.
( 2 ) AFTER this appeal had been preferred and admitted for hearing, the plaintiff company made a prayer for amendment of the plaint and that prayer was allowed on 4-2-1958. By that prayer, a new paragraph 6a was added. It was in these words :" (i) That the valuation on the basis of prime cost less depreciation is not only not authorised by law but is inconsistent with the rules particularly Rule 10 and the assessment is accordingly contrary to the relevant law and void. (ii) That the appeal against the assessment has not been dealt with by an authority competent under the law to deal with it and the said appeal is still in the eye of law pending and the demand on the basis of the said assessment is illegal. "it is obvious that if the assessment has been made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Bengal Municipal Act, the fact that there has been an error in arriving at a certain conclusion would not give the Civil Court any jurisdiction to question the legality or validity of the assessment. It is only if the assessment has not been made in substantial accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act that the finality of the assessment can be questioned. As one stage and an important stage in the assessment is the hearing and determination of an application for review of the assessment or valuation under Section 148 of the Bengal Muncipal Act, the question whether that hearing and determination has been by an authority competent under the law to deal with it, is a matter which can properly be considered by the Civil Court and if the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the hearing and determination of the application under Section 148 has not been by a competent authority, it will be proper for that Court to hold that the assessment, as made by the reviewing body, is not a valid and binding assessment in law.
( 3 ) IT has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Basu on behalf of the respondent that this amendment was made after the present appeal was preferred, so that the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge refusing the temporary injunction was not made after a consideration of this point. I think it would have been open to us to refuse to hear any argument on the basis of the amended plaint inasmuch as the order appealed from was not made after the amendment. As however, an appeal is, in law, a continuation of the proceeding appealed from, we have preferred to hear the parties on the position in law as resulting on the amendment being allowed.
( 4 ) ONCE the amendment has been allowed, it seems to me to be plain that the Civil Court will have to consider, for a proper decision of the prayer f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.