VANTHALI MUNICIPAL BOROUGH Vs. HABIBSHA HASANSHA GUHRAVARDHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.N.M. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

(2.) THE present respondents filed Civil Suit in a representative capacity challenging the action of the administrator of the defendant Municipal Borough to enhance the House Tax from 8% to 20%, by Resolution No.47 dtd.31/1/1995 on the ground that the resolution was passed without following due process of law. It is to be noted that the very same matter was placed before the Collector, who had observed that the resolution passed by the Municipality was bad. He, however, ordered the Municipality that they would be entitled to pass a new resolution after observing the procedure as provided under the law. By his order, the Collector, in fact, had set aside the resolution dtd.31/1/1995. It appears that all these took place during the pendency of the suit. The learned trial court dismissed the suit but the learned appellate court held that the resolution dtd.31/1/1995 was bad.

(3.) MR .Shah, learned counsel for the appellant Municipality submits that during the pendency of the suit, Resolution dtd.31/1/1995 was set aside by the Collector with liberty in favour of the Municipality to pass yet another resolution in accordance with law. He submits that after the orders were passed by the Collector, the Municipality followed the entire procedure and had passed some other resolution in 1996 with a clear stipulation that the said resolution would be effective w.e.f. 31/1/1995. Mr.Shah submits that in view of the changed circumstances, learned appellate court was not required to interfere in the matter.