JUDGMENT

R.S. Pathak, J. - This and the connected special appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellants.

2. The Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, notified proposals under Sec. 203 (3) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam for the levy of Theatre Tax. It was proposed to levy the tax on cinemas, carnivals and fetes and other amusements and entertainments. Cinemas were divided into two classes, defined by reference to the annual value of the cinema building, Class I comprised of cinemas where the annual value of the building for the purposes of property tax was Rs. 10,000, in that case the theatre tax was to be Rs. 5/- per show Class II comprised of cinemas where the annual value for property tax was Rs. 10,000 or less, in that case the theatre tax proposed was Rs. 3/- per show. An objection was filed by Shri Naresh Bhargava, President of the Allahabad Cinema Exhibitors Association (hereinafter called the Association). It purported to be an objection under Sec. 200 (1) of the Adhiniyam. It attempted to show that having regard to the conditions prevailing in the cinema industry the proposed tax would be burdensome and unreasonable. The Mahapalika, however, finalised the proposals and imposed the tax with the sanction of the State Government. The validity of the impost was challenged by the writ petitions. They have been dismissed by Beg., J.

3. A number of contentions have been raised before us.

4. The first contention is that the Nagar Mahapalika did not follow the procedure set out in the Adhiniyam while finalising the proposals and submitting them to the State Government. We find upon a perusal of the writ petitions that nothing has been indicated to show what were the lapses allegedly committed by the Mahapalika in this regard. Beyond a general averment that the procedure was not followed the appellants have said nothing more. On that ground alone we would be justified in not, considering that contention. In any event, there is no substance in it. It is pointed out first that the objection submitted by the Association was not considered by the Mahapalika. The counter-affidavit of Shri M. L. Bhargava clearly shows that the objection was considered and was rejected by a special resolution dated June 29, 1964 of the Mahapalika. The appellants say that the matter had already been considered by the Mahapalika on November 22, 1962, and rejected by a general resolution and therefore it was not open to the Mahapalika to consider the matter again on June 29, 1964; and inasmuch as there was no authority in the Mahapalika to dispose of the matter through a general resolution the entire procedure leading to the levy of the impost was invalid. It seems to us that if, as appears here, the proposals and the objection thereto can be disposed of by a special resolution only, the general resolution was beyond the powers of the Mahapalika. And it is well settled that what is beyond the powers of a statutory authority must be treated as a nullity. In that event the proposals and the objection thereto must be treated as remaining pending on November 23, 1962 and when the Mahapalika proceeded to dispose them of in its meeting of June 29, 1964, it acted entirely within its powers.

5. The next submission of the appellants is that when their objection was considered by the Mahapalika no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. Now, it is apparent from the provisions of Secs. 199 to 203 of the Adhiniyam that what is contemplated by the Legislature when framing and finalising proposals thereunder is the legislative process involved in imposing a tax. It is a process in which the historical cry of "no taxation without representation" has been widened to include filing of a personal objection by interests likely to be affected. They are given an opportunity to file objections to the proposed levy. Beyond this, the Legislature has not considered it necess