PATHAK, J. :- The District Board, Bareilly, by resolution No. 3 dated February 18, 1928, imposed circumstance and property tax in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 108 of the District Boards Act, 1922. By Notification No. 2049/ II/IX-342-11930 dated November 29, 1933 made by the State Government under Section 114 (d) of the Act, it was provided:

"The total amount of the tax on circumstances and property imposed by a District Board on any single assessee shall not, in any year, exceed the sum of Rs. 2,000."

The tax continued to be levied for many years.

2. On April 20, 1958 the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance 1958 was enacted providing for the establishment of Antarim Zila Parishads for the interim administration of local self-Government in rural areas facilitating the establishment of Zila Parishads for the co-ordinated administration of affairs concerning economic and social planning and local self-Government in the districts in Uttar Pradesh. The Ordinance was replaced by the U. P. Antarim Zila Parishads Act, 1958. It was followed by the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961. By Section 274 of the Act, the U. P. District Boards Act was repealed as from the date on which Kshettra Samitis were established in a district, and the U. P. Antarim Zila Parishads Act, 1958 was repealed from the date on which the Zila Parishad was established in a district.

3. The petitioner carries on business in Bareilly. Although the business is carried on within what were the local limits of the District Board, Bareilly and thereafter of the Antarim Zila Parishad, Bareilly the petitioner was never assessed to circumstance and property tax by those local bodies. Some time after the Zila Parishad, Bareilly was constituted, the petitioner, who was carrying on business Within what were now the local limits of the Zila Parishad, Bareilly received a notice on January 5, 1965 from the Zila Parishad demanding circumstance and property tax in the sum of Rs. 1,500 for the year 1964-65. The petitioner objected, but upon the assurance of the Adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad that the matter would be looked into, it paid the sum demanded. In 1966 the petitioner received a bill for the year 1965-66 demanding circumstance and property tax in the sum of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner filed an objection contending that the levy was illegal and that the Zila Parishad had no power to levy it. In particular, the petitioner contended that the Zila Parishad could not demand circumstance and property tax in excess of Rs. 250 and relied upon Article 276 of the Constitution. The objection was rejected by the Zila Parishad, which issued a notice of demand dated August 20, 1966 requiring the petitioner to pay the tax levied. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for relief against the demand.

4. The case was first heard by me sitting as a single Judge. The petitioner contended that the demand contravened Article 276 (2) of the Constitution declaring that the total amount payable by any one person to any local authority by way of taxes on professions, trades, callings or employments shall not exceed Rupees 250 per annum. The Zila Parishad relied, however, upon the proviso to Article 276 (2) which excepted from the substantive provision of Article 276 (2) a tax in force during the financial year preceding the commencement of the Constitution imposed by a local authority on professions, trades, callings and employments even if the rate exceeded Rs. 250 per annum unless Parliament by law provided to the contrary. In reply to the submission of the petitioner that the proviso contemplated a local authority which was the same as that imposing the tax before the commencement of the Constitution and that the Zila Parishad, Bareilly could not be said to be the same as the District Board, Bareilly, the Zila Parishad relied upon Allahabad Canning Co., Bamrauli v. Commissioner of Allahabad Division Civil Misc. Writ. No. 2882 of 1966, D/- 20-2-19