RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. SONIK INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO far as this Full Bench is concerned we will only deal with the question arising under sec. 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 This second appeal first came up for hearing before our learned Brother S. B. Majmudar J. on November 27 1979 By his order dated on that day he referred the second appeal to a Larger Bench for resolving the controversy which arises for decision in the present case. Our learned Brother found that there was an important question of law of general public importance arising in this present proceeding and the decision of the learned Single Judge M. U. Shah J. though directly on the point had not considered all the relevant aspects if the matter and that at present there were Division Bench judgments of this Court some of which had made certain general observations though not strictly concerned with the main question which arose for decision ill the present case and he felt that it was a fit case which deserved to be referred to a Larger Bench. Thereafter the second appeal came up before the Division Bench consisting are of us (Divan C. J ) and S. B. Majumdar J. on January 15 1980 and in view of the conflict in the decision of Division Benches the matter was referred to a Larger Bench and thereafter the matter has own come up for hearing before this Full Bench.

(2.) The facts leading to this litigation are as follows:- The respondent in this suit is the original plaintiff and the appellant the Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot is the original defendant. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and it filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot praying for a declaration that the impugned rules Exhibit 89 in the trial Court of the defendant Municipal Corporation for levying rates and taxes on buildings and lands in Rajkot which were sought to be put into force from January 1 1965 were illegal unconstitutional ineffective and without any authority. A further declaration was also sought that the assessment lists in the suit in so far as they pertain to the factory of the plaintiff firm were also illegal unconstitutional ineffective and without authority and further that the suit bill dated December 8 1970 are the demand notice dated December 22 1971 for Rs. 12 517 for the period April 1 1966 to March 31 1972 and the year 1971-72 were also illegal unconstitutional ineffective and without any authority. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Corporation from recovering any rate or tax on the basis of the impugned rules or the impugned assessment lists or the impugned bill or the demand notice. They also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from sending any bill or demand notice pursuant to the impugned rules or the impugned assessment lists for the recovery of house tax from the plaintiff. The learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot who heard the suit held that the rules called Rules For Rates And Taxes on Lands And Building issued by the defendant Municipal Corporation and its predecessor the Rajkot Municipality were illegal unconstitutional unauthorized and void He further held that the assessment list relating to the plaintiffs factory for the purposes of house tax was illegal unconstitutional and void. He further held that the demand notice dated December 22 1971 and the bill dated December 8 1970 were illegal unconstitutional and void. A contention was raised on behalf of the Municipality that the suit was barred by limitation and further that without notice to the Municipality the suit was not maintainable. The learned Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation and further that the suit was maintainable. He also held that the suit was properly valued for the purposes of Court fee. Ultimately the learned Civil Judges Junior Division decreed the plaintiffs suit and also granted the injunctions as prayed for in the suit. The declarations and injunctions which were this sought for were granted by the learned Judge in the trial Court.

(3.) Against this judgment and decree of the trial Court an appeal was preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Rajkot to the District Court Rajkot. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Rajkot. This appeal was Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1977 the learned Extra Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal and chauffeured the decree of the trefoil Court and thereafter the present second appeal was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Rajkot At the time when the second appeal came-up of admission before one of us (B. K. Mehta J) the following questions of law there formulated as questions of law arising in this appeal:-