Back
1979 Supreme(Cal) 218
High Court Of Calcutta
Mitra, S.K. Datta, JJ.
Karnani Properties Ltd : Appellant
Versus
Corporation Of Calcutta : Respondent
Appeal from Original Suit No. 102 of 1973
Decided On : Jun 20,1979
R.C. Deb, Bankim Dutt, Prodosh Mallick, Ranjan Deb, Nirmal K. Mitter, T.K. Basu, Umesh Banerji, P.K. Ray
The Corporation is not bound to send the presentation copy of the rate bill to the rate-payer stamped with the Assessor's signature. The absence of signature or facsimile of signature on the presentation copy of a municipal rate-bill is not a defect of a substantial nature. The Corporation's practice of presenting the rate-bills under certificate of posting under section 235 is valid. The Corporation cannot compel the appellant to make the payment by presenting bills beyond a reasonable time. Section 200 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 237 of the Act is not void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. The legislature can revive section 237 by amending section 251. The validating Act can get over discrimination.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 226 - WRIT PETITION - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - CONSOLIDATED RATES - PRESENTATION OF BILLS - SIGNATURE OR FACSIMILE OF SIGNATURE OF ASSESSOR OR COMMISSIONER - WHETHER NECESSARY - CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1951 (WEST BENGAL ACT XXXV OF 1951) - SECTIONS 191, 234, 235, 245, 251, 260, 527, 552 - ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION MANUAL OF THE CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA, 1916 - WHETHER HAS THE FORCE OF LAW - WHETHER THE CORPORATION IS BOUND TO SEND THE PRESENTATION COPY OF THE RATE BILL TO THE RATE-PAYER STAMPED WITH THE ASSESSOR'S SIGNATURE - WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNATURE OR FACSIMILE OF SIGNATURE ON THE PRESENTATION COPY OF A MUNICIPAL RATE-BILL IS A DEFECT OF A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE - WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER HAS THE OPTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECT - WHETHER THE CORPORATION'S PRACTICE OF PRESENTING THE RATE-BILLS UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING UNDER SECTION 235 IS VALID - WHETHER THE CORPORATION CAN COMPEL THE APPELLANT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT BY PRESENTING BILLS BEYOND A REASONABLE TIME - WHETHER SECTION 200 OF THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER SECTION 237 OF THE ACT IS VOID UNDER ARTICLE 13 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE CAN REVIVE SECTION 237 BY AMENDING SECTION 251 - WHETHER THE VALIDATING ACT CAN GET OVER DISCRIMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Karnani Properties Ltd., challenged before the learned judge in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the rate bills for both owner's and occupier's share of consolidated rates relating to 17 premises under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, being premises Nos. 21, 23 25A 25B 27A 27B 29 31 33 35 37 39 43 45 47 55 and 57 Park Street, Calcutta for the period starting with the first quarter of 1968-69, to the fourth quarter of 1970-71 ; three letters dated the 17th March, 1971 ; and the rate bills dated the 1st January, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court held that there is no obligation on the part of the Corporation of Calcutta to send the "Presentation copy" of the rate bill to the rate-prayer stamped with the Assessor's signature. 2. The Court held that the absence of signature or facsimile of signature, on the "presentation copy" of a Municipal rate-bill is not a defect of a substantial nature. 3. The Court held that the Corporation's practice of presenting the rate-bills under certificate of posting under section 235 is valid. 4. The Court held that the Corporation cannot compel the appellant to make the payment by presenting bills beyond a reasonable time. 5. The Court held that section 200 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. The Court held that section 237 of the Act is not void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. 7. The Court held that the legislature can revive section 237 by amending section 251. 8. The Court held that the validating Act can get over discrimination.
Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation is bound to send the presentation copy of the rate bill to the rate-payer stamped with the Assessor's signature? 2. Whether the absence of signature or facsimile of signature on the presentation copy of a municipal rate-bill is a defect of a substantial nature? 3. Whether the Corporation's practice of presenting the rate-bills under certificate of posting under section 235 is valid? 4. Whether the Corporation can compel the appellant to make the payment by presenting bills beyond a reasonable time? 5. Whether section 200 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 6. Whether section 237 of the Act is void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution? 7. Whether the legislature can revive section 237 by amending section 251? 8. Whether the validating Act can get over discrimination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there is no requirement of the 1951 Act for any signature or facsimile of signature on the "Presentation Copy" of a bill for consolidated rate. Admittedly, also, no rules or bye-laws have been framed under the Act for any such signature or facsimile of signature. 2. The Court held that the absence of a signature or facsimile of a signature on the "presentation copy" of a Municipal rate-bill is not a defect of a substantial nature. In any event the Commissioner under the proviso to section 260 (1) (b) of the 1951 Act had the option to correct the defect which in the instant case he did not exercise. 3. The Court held that the Corporation's practice of presenting the rate-bills under certificate of posting under section 235 is valid. Section 260 (1) (b) of the 1951 Act gives power to the Commissioner to correct any mistake or clerical error or defect of form as is referred to in subsection (1). 4. The Court held that the Corporation cannot compel the appellant to make the payment by presenting bills beyond a reasonable time. Section 235 (1) requires presentation of the bills "with the least practicable delay". 5. The Court held that section 200 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The discretion has been conferred of the Commissioner himself. The discretion cannot be said to be necessarily discriminatory. 6. The Court held that section 237 of the Act is not void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. By the amending Act of 1960 it has been provided that the Corporation has to exhaust the distraint procedure before resorting to the procedure for recovery by suit. By the validating Act, therefore, retrospectively only one procedure has been made available at a time. 7. The Court held that the legislature can revive section 237 by amending section 251. The Special Bench did not say that there was any inherent vice in section 237. This section was declared invalid because of the opening words of section 251 as they then stood. 8. The Court held that the validating Act can get over discrimination. The legislature was competent to amend section 251 to remove the defect that the Special Bench had noticed.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed; interim orders, if any, are vacated; there will be no order as to costs.
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C. J.
1. THIS is an appeal from a Judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. delivered on the 30th April, 1973. The Karnani Properties Ltd. (hereinafter called "the appellant") challenged before the learned judge in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the rate bills for both owner's and occupier's share of consolidated rates relating to 17 premises under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, being premises Nos. 21, 23 25A 25B 27A 27B 29 31 33 35 37 39 43 45 47 55 and 57 Park Street, Calcutta for the period starting with the first quarter of 1968-69, to the fourth quarter of 1970-71 ; three letters dated the 17th March, 1971 ; and the rate bills dated the 1st January, 1971.
2. ON the 1st May, 1952, the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, came into force. Prior to June 26, 1954,-there was a general valuation of all lands and buildings in the then ward No. 53 in which all the premises of the appellant were situate. The general valuation was made under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 172 of the Act of 1951.
With effect from the second quarter of 1954-55, the Assessor to the Corporation sought to amalgamate 16 of the said premises into three premises and put amalgamated valuations thereon.
3. ON the 5th December, 1955, D. N. Sinha, J. on an application under Article 226 quashed the amalgamations and new valuations. The Learned Judge directed the Corporation to proceed according to law.
4. BETWEEN March 9, 1957 and March 12, 1957, four notices under section 175 of the 1951 Act were issued by the Corporation's Commissioner proposing to amalgamate the said 16 premises.
Between March 31, 1960 and April 6, 1960, by 16 notices under section 180 of the 1951 Act in respect of the said premises excepting premises No. 27B, Park Street the Corporation's Assessor informed the appellant that the valuation under section 172 (3) (b) read with section 172 (4), as shown in the said notices would remain in force from the second quarter of 1954-55 until further valuation The earlier valuation, as we have seen, had been cancelled on the ground of irregularity.
5. ON April 18, 1960 the Corporation's Assistant Assessor addressed four letters to the appellant, informing that the four notices of proposed amalgamation stood cancelled and separate notices or" re-valuation would be issued.
6. ON September 12, 1960, seventeen notices under section 180 of 1951 Act each in respect of one of the 17 premises were issued intimating the petitioner about the increased annual valuation of the said premises with effect from the second quarter of 1960-61.
On March 22, 1963, the Corporation's Special Officer passed several orders disposing of the objections which the appellant had filed in respect of two lots of notices under section 180 of the 1951 Act.
7. ON September 20, 1963, the appellant moved an application under Article 226 against the notices issued under section 180 and the orders passed thereon, all dated the 22nd March, 1963. This Court issued a rule which was numbered as Matter No. 398 of 1963.
8. ON March 6, 1964, the Court passed an interim order of injunction in Matter No. 398 of 1963 which was heard on March 11, 1965.
Between the 7th January, 1967 and the 7th March, 1967, the appellant received 20 Rate Bills from the third and fourth quarters of 1966-67 in respect of premises Nos. 25A 25B 27A 27B and 47, Park Street by which the Corporation sought to charge the consolidated tax in respect of the said premises at the rate of 30 1/2 % On the 12th April, 1967, the respondent No. 3, namely, the Collector; Corporation of Calcutta, also presented to the appellant certain rate bills being the difference of rate bills for the first and second quarters of 1966-67. The previous rate bills in respect of the said quarters were presented at the rate of 231/2 % in respect of premises Nos. 25A, 25B, 27A, 27B and 47, Park Street, Calcutta.
9. ON the 29th April, 1967, the appellant wrote to the Corporation contending that the St
