SHIVAPUTRAPPA S UMADI Vs. RABKAVI BANAHATTI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the six petitioners who are dealers in tea in the town of Rabkavi Banahatti, in Bijapur District, have challenged the validity of the Notification issued by the first respondent-Municipality of the aforementioned Town, dated 14th July, 1977 under S. 95(b) of the Kamataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and subsequent sanction given by the Government as per Government Order dater 17-1-1978 published in the Gazette dated 16-2-1978 (Ext. 'B').

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The (notification issued under S. 95 (b) of the Act is produced a,t Ext.-A to the petition and the Government sanction at Ext.-B. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the Notification at Ext.-A inasmuch as the same is not in conformity with what the Municipality is required to do under S. 95(1) of the Act, inasmuch as there is no indication of the rates prevalent for the various commodities listed in the Notification of the first respondent Municipality so that the petitioners and others like them who were going to be affected by the proposal of levy of octroi would have been in a better position to file their objections which were called for in terms of the notification. Secondly, it has been urged that the Municipality acted in abdicatiton of its own powers in choosing to tax all the items of articles to be found in Schedule II to the Act instead of applying its mind and selecting only such articles which were likely to come into the town limits of the first respondent Municipality. It is therefore argued that the action of the Municipality has been arbitrary and liable to be struck down,

(3.) It is difficult to accede to either of the two contentions started above. S.95(a) (b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act reads as follows: 95. Procedure preliminary TO imposing tax- A Municipal council before imposing a tax shall observe the following preliminary procedure: -