( 1 ) THE Municipal Board of Hapur decided to impose water-tax, and after its proposals and rules had been finalised they were sanctioned by the Commissioner (who is the prescribed authority for the purpose) and a Notification was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 11-12-1956 imposing the tax in question from 1-4-1957. The petitioners, who are fifteen house owners of hapur, received notices from the Board for payment of the water-tax assessed in respect of their houses. They have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pray for the issue of a writ or order preventing the Board from realising the tax, and their principal contention is that the tax is illegal inasmuch as it has been imposed in contravention of various provisions of the municipalities Act 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) WHEN a Board desires to impose a tax it is lequired to follow a procedure which is found laid down in Sections 131 to 135 of the Act. It is a somewhat complicated procedure, but it has been lucidly outlined in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath v. Municipal board, Gorakhpur, 1956 ALJ 198. Hence it is not necessary for me to reproduce it here. It is incontestable that no tax can be said to be validly imposed unless this procedure has been followed. Consequently the question to which I have to address myself for deciding this petition is whether or not the Board has imposed the water-tax by adopting the procedure laid down by the Act.

( 3 ) BEFORE I turn to consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the contending parties I should like to lay emphasis on one point. Taxation tc be valid must be levied, assessed and realised in strict conformity with the statute which authorises it. Also, in the present instance a reading of sections 131 to 134 makes it abundantly clear that the legislature want that wide publicity should be given to the proposals and the rules framed by a Board for levying, assessing and realising a municipal tax so that all persons who may be affected by the tax may have an opportunity of raising objections if they wish to. It follows that the Board must strictly comply with the provisions of Sections 131 to 135. This consideration will have to be borne in mind in assessing the value of the contentions of the rival parties.

( 4 ) A preliminary point may be disposed of here. The Board alleges that the petitioner No. 2, janmaijai Kripal, was himself the Chairman of the Water Works Committee of the Board which had originally framed proposals for the imposition of water-tax, and the argument is that this being so he, and consequently his fellow-petitioners, must be presumed to have had knowledge of the proposals. The simple answer is that even if it be assumed that the petitioner No. 2 had the necessary knowledge, this does not take away his Constitutional right of challenging the validity of the new taxation measure there is no such thing as estoppel applying to a matter like this.

( 5 ) I turn now to the submissions of the parties. The first contention of Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that although the Board passed special resolution No. 295 dated 23-11-1955, this resolution does not comply with the requirements of Section 131 (1 ). The reply of the Board, as appears from para 3 of the affidavit filed on its behalf by its Head Clerk, is that its Water Works Committee prepared draft rules for the assessment and collection of water-tax, that these rules were placed before a meeting of the Board on 23-11-1955 and that that day the board passed special resolution No. 295 adopting the draft rules and also framing proposals as required by Section 131 (1 ). A copy of the special resolution in question, which is in Hindi, has been filed. Translated into english it would run:

"water-tax and water-supply draft rules as pass-led by the Water Works Committee are put up for approval. They are approved and necessary action be taken. "

Now, Sec