MANUEL T. PAIKADAY Vs. C.C. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the same in all these crises;and the first respondent in the first two cases and the sole respondent in the last case is the Revenue Inspector,Palai Municipality and the second respondent in the first two cases is the State of Kerala.The questions raised in these cases are also the same.In the last case the petitioner requested the lower court to state a case and refer the same to this court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,which prayer was refused by the lower court.

(2.) THE petitioner owns properties within the Municipality of Palai;and he was assessed to property tax.He failed to pay the tax and he was prosecuted.In the first two cases he has been convicted and sentenced to fine;and in the last case a similar prosecution is pending before the lower court,and the petitioner has failed in his,attempt to bring up the case to this court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Under section 150 of the Kerala Municipalities Act rules were framed.They are contained in Schedule II of the Act "Taxation and Finance Rules.Under rule 32(2)the petitioner has been prosecu­ted as a distraint or a sufficient distraint of the petitioner 's property was impracticable.The power of a municipality to tax properties is contained in section 99 of the Act.Section 99(1)provided that if the municipal council by a resolution determines that a property tax shall be levied,such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within the municipal limits save those exempted by or under the Act or any other law.Section 99(4) (a) applies to the cases before us;and this clause provides that the municipal council shall,in the case of lands used exclusively for agri­cultural purposes,levy the taxes at such percentage as it may fix of the annual value of such lands.The proviso to this clause then provides that the percentage shall not exceed the maximum if any fixed by the Government.

(3.) THE first contention of the counsel of the petitioner is that this provision gives unbridled and uncanalised power to the municipality to fix the rate of property tax.In other words,the contention is that the rate of the property tax is not indicated by,the legislature itself,and leaving it to the municipal council is excessive delegation and hence void.The counsel has drawn our attention to a few decisions as well on the question.But,we do not think that it is necessary to refer to those decisions in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in The Muni­cipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton,Spinning and Weaving Mills,Delhi (A.I.R.1968 S.C.1232 ). Section 150 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was challenged in that case on the ground that there was excessive delegation by the legislature to the Municipal Corporation.Of the seven Judges that consti­tuted the Bench,Wanchoo,C.J.and four other Judges expressed the opinion that there was no excess delegation,while Shah and Vaidialingam,JJ.took a different view.Several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were consi­dered;and the majority Judges of the Supreme Court indicated the principles that should be applied in considering whether a delegation is unguided or excessive.