Back
High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE
CHATTER SINGH BAID - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
C. R. 11874 Of 1982
Decided On : 06/01/1983
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT - S. 183(3A) - VALIDITY - RIGHT TO APPEAL - CONDITION FOR DEPOSIT OF CONSOLIDATED RATE - REASONABLENESS - ARTICLE 14.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of premises No. 11, Indra Kumar Karnani Street, challenged the vires of sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which required the deposit of consolidated rates payable up to the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined by an order under Section 182, in the case of an appeal to the Court of Small Causes, by the decision of the Court of Small Causes, in the case of an appeal to the High Court, as a condition for entertaining the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the condition for deposit of consolidated rate contained in sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was not arbitrary or unfair and therefore did not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also held that the said provision was not repugnant to or inconsistent with other provisions for payment and recovery of consolidated rates contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act. The court further held that the sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act did not make the right of appeal under Section 183 (1) of the Act nugatory or illusory.
Issues: 1. Whether the condition for deposit of consolidated rate contained in sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was arbitrary or unfair and therefore infringed Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the said provision was repugnant to or inconsistent with other provisions for payment and recovery of consolidated rates contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act? 3. Whether the sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act made the right of appeal under Section 183 (1) of the Act nugatory or illusory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the condition for deposit of consolidated rate contained in sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was not arbitrary or unfair and therefore did not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and the legislature may regulate the said right. The court further observed that the impugned provision did not give unanalyzed discretionary powers to the authorities nor did the Act seek to make any differentiation or classification. Persons who may feel aggrieved by orders passed under Section 182 (2) of the Act, prefer appeals under Section 183, from one class and they have been equally treated. All appellants under Section 183 (1) of the Act are required to fulfill the condition imposed by Section 183 (3a) of the Act in order to avail of the opportunity of hearing before the Small Causes Court. 2. The court held that the said provision was not repugnant to or inconsistent with other provisions for payment and recovery of consolidated rates contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act. The court observed that the provisions contained in chapter-XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act prescribe the different methods of recovery of consolidated rate and other taxes from the persons liable. Subject to the special provisions, the owner of land or building is liable for the owner's share of consolidated rate and the balance half of the consolidated rate is payable by the occupier. 3. The court held that the sub-section (3a) of Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act did not make the right of appeal under Section 183 (1) of the Act nugatory or illusory. The court observed that the appellant must deposit upto date consolidated rate which he is liable to pay under Section 191 or which might be the was lawfully recoverable from him under the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Act.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule without any order as to costs and stayed the operation of the order for four weeks from the date of the order.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are owners of premises No. 11, Indra Kumar Karnani Street (formerly Known as premises No. 11, Jackson Lane ). With effect from 4th quarter, 1978-79 the Corporation of Calcutta had determined the annual value of the said premises at Rs. 430606/ -. On 9th November, 1981 a Special Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta had disposed of their objection against the said increase in valuation made under S. 181 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 by fixing the annual value at Rs. 361135/ -. Being dissatisfied with the said order passed under S. 182 of the said Act the petitioners have presented under S 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 Municipal Appeal No. 141 of 1982 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The said appeal is pending.
( 2 ) THE Calcutta Municipal (3rd Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into effect on 22nd June, 1976 has inserted the following sub-s (3a) in S. 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951: -"no appeal under this section shall be entertained unless the consolidated rate payable up to the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined- by an order under S. 182, in the case of an appeal to the Court of small Causes, by the decision of the Court of Small Causes, in the case of an appeal to the High Court, has been deposited in the municipal office and such consolidated rate is continued to be deposited until the appeal is finally decided. "
( 3 ) THE petitioners have obtained the present Rule, inter alia, challenging the vires of said sub-s (3a) of S. 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and also contending that the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta has no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners to deposit consolidated rates payable up to the date of the presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined by the impugned order under S. 182 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and also to continue to deposit the consolidated rate on the said valuation so determined until the appeal presented by the petitioners is finally decided.
( 4 ) ON January 28, 1983, I had rejected four writ applications filed by M/s Jajodia Estates Pvt. Ltd and others, who had, inter alia, contended that the learned Chief Judge of the small Cause Court at Calcutta had committed error of jurisdiction by applying sub-s (3a) of S. 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 in respect of the appeals presented by them against the orders passed under S. 182 of the said Act. My said decision has been since reported at page 391 of the 87 CWN Having given my anxious consideration to the various submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners of the instant Rule, I find no reason to revise my views regarding the scope and effect of sub-s, (3a) of S 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. I may, however, note that Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the instant Rule, has urged several points which were not raised at the time of the disposal of the case of M/s. Jajodia Estates Pvt. Ltd. V. Corporation of Calcutta (supra ).
( 5 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has not disputed the well-settled principle that right of appeal is a creature of statute and the legislature may regulated the said right. But according to Mr. Ghosh, the said right is not an unfettered one and the legislative action in this behalf Constitution. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that when conditions imposed are so onerous as to deprive the right of appeal, the restrictive provision ought to be struck down as unreasonable. The contention of Mr. Ghosh is that the cumulative effect of the sub-s (3a) of S. 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is to make the right of appeal under S 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is to make the right of appeal under S 183 of the said Act nugatory and to deny the right of appeal to those who cannot pay consolidated rate determined on the basis of the valuation which is under challenge in the appeal. Mr.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
