Back
1994 JLJ 619
U.L. Bhat C.J. and M.V. Tamaskar, J.
Shahid Hussain v. Municipal Council, Sewda and others
M.P. No. 1477 of 1994; Decided on 26.7.1994.
A perusal of Rule 12 and other provisions quoted above do not in any way suggest that the same are not within the scope and ambit of the powers conferred by the Statute. Secondly, they are not inconsistent with the parent enactment and nor do they infringe any fundamental right or restriction or limitations imposed by the Constitution.
Here it may be stated that the procedure for assessment, recovery would not be applicable in the present case as a specific mode of collection has been prescribed. The provisions relating to assessment and recovery have been excluded by adopting the mode of auction. As stated by the Supreme Court the Courts have to take into consideration the policy laid down under the rules and have only to see whether the impugned regulations or rules fall within the scope of regulation making power conferred by the Statute. Any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation do not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion it is not a wise or prudent policy but even a foolish one and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act.
There is yet another aspect of looking at the powers of the State to make rules. The rule making power may enumerate specifically matters on which the rule may be framed but that will not take away the general power conferred on the State to make rules for effectuating the purposes of the Act. AIR 1984 SC 1543, AIR 1992 SC 1456, MP No. 2002/93, 1981 JLJ 463 and AIR 1964 SC 264 relied on. [Paras 9 to 11
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- subordinate legislation having reasonable nexus with object and purpose of enabling statute -- Court is not to concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of subordinate legislation. Interpretation of Statutes by Hon‘bIe Justice G.P. Singh, J. relied on. [Para 11
(3) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- Ss. 189-A and 427 (2) & (3) -- provision under S. 189-A for recovery of tax and fee by auction or contract lease is valid -- the provision is not in any way inconsistent with provisions of S. 427 (2) & (3). 1993 MPLJ 640 referred to. [Paras 12 & 15
(4) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- S. 132 (2) (k) -Constitution of India -- Sch. VII List II Entry 56 -- provision under S. 132 of the Act -- derives authority from Entry 56 of the Constitution -- such entry should be construed to harmonise with subject of enactment. AIR 1969 Bom. 310 relied on. [Para 16
(5) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- S. 189-A -- payment of passenger tax by bus conductor -- does not make it a tax on vehicles -- it is rather a convenient mode of payment -- provision under is not ultra vires. [Paras 18 & 19
M.V. Tamaskar, J. -- 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 214/92 (M/s Siharchand Ratanchand Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 447/92 (V.K. Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1449/92 (V.K. Bajpai v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1450/92 (Dharamvir Sharma v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1067/92 (Santosh Kumar v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 3755/92 (Babbu Singh v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 3774/92 (The Bharat Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 53/93 (Bus Operator Union v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 312/93 (M/s R.S. Fouzdar Bus Service v. State of M.P. and M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1469/93 (Ushman Khan v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1549/93 (A.N. Sharma v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1547/93 (Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P. & others), Misc. Pet. No. 1575/93 (S.S. Chouhan v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1832/93 (R.K. Sinha v. State of M.P. and others), Misc. Petition No. 1948/93 (Hemant Kumar v. State of M.P. & others), Misc. Petition No. 4414/93 (Laxmi Bus Service v. State of M.P. and others) & Misc. Petition No. 2217/94 (Jawaharlal Jain v. State of M.P. and others) which was heard in motion hearing which raised some additional submissions. Since all the cases relate to the right of the local authorities to collect terminal tax on passengers by auction, the same are being decided by a common order. The main submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are one that the rules framed for realisation of terminal tax are void on the ground that the law does not authorise framing of such rules and as such in excess of authority conferred on the delegate. The second submission made is that the amendment of section 189-A in the Municipal Corporation Act is violative of the scheme under the Municipal Corporation Act.
2. We deal with these submissions as under: Since both the submissions have same shades of argument they are decided together. Shahid Hussain and others, the first batch of cases, are off-shoot of judgment of this Court reported in Indore Bhed Bakra Vikreta Sangh v. Municipal Corporation, Indore and others (1992 JLJ 34 = 1992 MPLJ 781) and Ibadatali Abbasali v. Municipal Council, Khargone and others (1993 MPU 640) all these decisions were held to be not good law in view of the findings recorded in the Full Bench case in Misc. Petition No. 2002 of 1993 decided on 15th April, 1994. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that the only question before the Full Bench was 'whether the terminal tax on passengers could be collected by adopting mode of auction', and validity of byelaws framed for the same and of the rules was not in question.
3. The challenge before the Full Bench was in relation to the provisions of section 86, 87, 88, 132, 134 and byelaws making provisions u/s 427 and 430 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, considered in Full Bench case were sections 105, 160 and Rule 12 of the M.P. Municipalities Terminal Tax on Passengers (Regulation of Assessment and Collection) Rules, 1988. Before we come to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel, it would be better to refer some of the findings recorded by the Full Bench. Reference may be made to the order in Full Bench referring to the proposition referred from Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 84 (Taxation) Page 1317:
"Page 1317: It is the policy of the law to favour the collection of all taxes, and when-ever it is possible on any theory to do so, the Courts will construe the statutes to accomplish that result, and any statute which limits the rights of the State to collect taxes must be strictly construed, in favour of the State. Thus, many of the provisions relating to the collection of delinquent t
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
