Judgment

M. FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:- These connected appeals by special leave arise from the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka. The Writ Petitions filed by the respondents against the appellant, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore were allowed and the resolution dated the December 30, 1974 passed by the Corporation levying octroi on certain additional items under Section 98 of the City of Bangalore Corporation Act, 1949 (shortly stated as the Act) was declared as invalid.

2. Section 98 of the Act requires the Corporation before passing any resolution imposing a tax or duty for the first time to publish a notice in the Official Gazette and in the local newspapers of its. intention and inviting objections. The Corporation may, after considering the objections, if any, received within the period specified determine by resolution to levy the tax or duty.

3. On the recommendation of the Standing Committee to levy octroi on certain new items of goods the appellant published a notice as contemplated under Section 98(1) of the Act inviting objections from the public and the said notice was published in the Gazette dated 17-9-1974. Several objections were received in pursuance of the said notification. The subject was included in the supplementary agenda at the meeting held on 30-12-1974. It was taken up in the meeting as Item No. 146 and the resolution was passed unanimously. The Commissioner thereafter issued a notification.

4. The respondents challenged the validity of the resolution on the ground inter alia that there had not been consideration of the objections before passing the resolution and, therefore, the mandatory provision under Section 98(1) was violated. The High Court in allowing the Writ Petitions has taken the view that what is contemplated under the statute is a real consideration of the objections and not a mere pretence and since the time was too short there was no opportunity for such consideration and on account of non-consideration of the objections to the proposed levy the condition precedent for the passing of the resolution was not satisfied and therefore, the resolution is invalid.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the objections have been placed on the table after the Commissioner had prepared a note of the several objections analysing the nature of the objection, setting out the legal conditions regarding the levy and containing the answers to the objection, distributed cyclostyled copies of the note before the meeting, and the subject was taken up and passed unanimously. The text of the resolution it is submitted indicated that there was proper application of mind by the council. Relying on the decision of this Court in Municipal Board, Hapur v. Raghavendra Kripal, (1966) 1 SCR 950 the learned counsel maintained that the High Court should not have ventured into the question of the manner in which consideration was given to the item in the agenda and the presumption that the statutory authority has followed the prescribed procedure should prevail. It was also pointed out that the Mayor of the Corporation and one of the councillors have filed affidavits affirming that the objections along with the note were placed on the table and the objections were taken note of before reaching the decision. The respondents learned council submitted that consideration of the objections is a condition precedent for imposition of the levy and the High Court having been satisfied of the non-compliance with this mandatory requirement, has rightly invalidated the tax.

6. The admitted facts are that the resolution had been passed on 30-12-74 after placing the objections on the table and, distributing notes of the Commissioner, analysing the Objections and containing answers to the same. The subject was in the urgent agenda and the record of proceedings revealed that the resolution had been passed unanimously.

7. Taxation in order to be valid must not only be authorised by a statute, but also be levied