The court established that the scope of Sec. 48 of the Municipalities Act extends to acts done within the general scope of the authority of the municipal committee, even if such acts were irregular or in contravention of statutory conditions.

Niyogi, J—This revision application and revision applications Nos. 374 to 384 of 1937 arise out of several suits filed against the Amraoti Town Municipal Committee to recover some amounts which had been illegally collected from the plaintiffs. The suits have been decreed and the defendant has filed the applications for revision. This order governs the disposal of all of them. In 1932 the defendant Municipal Committee proposed enhancement of a tax, then already in force, on every animal that wag brought to the slaughter house from one anna to four annas. The Committee passed a resolution proposing enhancement of the tax and caused its proposal to be published in the Central Provinces Gazette in March 1932 in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Municipalities Act. No objection having been received, it again caused a fresh notice to be published in the Gazette in May 1932. Some objections were received thereafter and the Committee, without considering them, forwarded its proposal as well as the objections to the Local Government which issued a notification imposing the enhanced tax, In pursuance of the Local Government's notification which reasonably led the Committee to believe that it could collect the tax at the enhanced rate, it began to collect it from l8t May 1933. The butchers who were aggrieved filed Civil Suit No. 447 of 1933 for a declaration that the enhancement of the tax was illegal as their objections had not been considered. Their suit ended in a decree passed on 5th April 1934 since when the Committee ceased to collect the tax at the enhanced rate.

2. As the plaintiffs succeeded in their civil suit in getting a declaration that the enhancement of the tax was illegal they have sued to recover the amounts collected from them in excess of the lawful rate of one anna per animal from 1st May 1933 to 5th April 1934. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the suits were barred by time, regard being had to Sec. 48, Municipalities Act. That Section is as follows:

No suit shall be instituted against any committee or any member, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of party such committee, member, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing......(2) every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of accrual of the alleged cause of action.

3. The question is whether the collection of the tax at the enhanced rate of four annas per animal was an act which falls within the ambit of the expression ''anything done or purporting to be done under this Act.'' In K.L. Niyogi & Co. v. District Council, Buldana,1930 26 NLR 81 an expression almost identical with the expression used in S. 48, Municipalities Act, was construed as relating only to an act done or purporting to be done in direct execution of the Act. It is urged on the other side that the Municipal Committee, in not having considered the objections filed against their proposal for the enhancement of the tax acted beyond their powers with the result that the tax at the enhanced rate became illegal and could not be recovered. As the act was illegal, that is to say, contrary to law, it is contended that it could not fall within the scope of S. 48, Municipalities Act. Reliance is placed on Municipal Council, Dindigul v. Bombay Co. Ltd., 1929 56 MadLJ 525, Rajputana Malwa Railway Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. Ajmere Municipal Board, 1910 32 ILR(All) 491 and Tullaram v. Corporation of Calcutta,1903 7 CalWN 329. The last mentioned case does not appear to be in point and need not be discussed. The other two cases are distinguishable on the ground that the authority which imposed or collected the tax had no power to do so. It was acting, entirely beyond the scope of its jurisdiction and therefore it contravened the statute which created it. In Municipal Council, Dindigul v. Bombay Co. Ltd., 1929 56