THAROO MAL Vs. PURAN CHAND PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us by grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution is a partner in a firm carrying on the business of running a cinema house called "Jai Talkies" in the town of Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. The Municipal Board of Pilibhit passed a resolution on 11th of April, 1971, imposing a theatre tax of Rs. 25/- per show under Section 128 (1) (iii-a) read with Sections 296 and 299 of the Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The resolution was duly published in a Hindi newspaper on 16 May, 1972, as required by Section 94 (3) read with S. 131 (1) (a) of the Act. The preliminary proposals for imposition of a tax were framed under S. 131 of the Act which reads as follows:

(2.) Section 132 of the Art then lays down:

(3.) It is evident from S. 132 (1) of the Act that the time given to the residents within the municipal limits to file their objections is a fortnight from the publication of the resolution, as required by S. 94 (1) of the Act. Apparently, a fortnight is considered a reasonable time so that objections may be submitted for consideration to the Municipal Board. As was pointed out by one of us (Beg, C. J.) in Niranjan Lal Bhargava v. State of U. P., 1969 All LJ 295 with regard to almost identically framed provisions of Sections 199 to 203 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, the procedure for the imposition of the tax is legislative and not quasi-judicial. Hence, there seems to us nothing to prevent the Municipal Board from considering any objections which may have been filed even after a fortnight, a period which may, at the most, be construed as a reasonable limit from the publication of the notification after which the persons deemed to be notified could not reasonably complain of want of opportunity to object. The right to object, however, seems to be given at the stage of proposals of the tax only as a concession to requirements of fairness even though the procedure is legislative and not quasi-judicial.