CHAIRMAN, DHANBAD MUNICIPALITY Vs. JANESWAR BHAKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise a decision of the Small Cause Court Judge of Dhanbad. The petitioner, the Chairman of the Dhanbad Municipality instituted a suit against the opposite party for realisation of arrears of taxes in respect of six holdings, situated within the Dhanbad Municipality, namely, holdings Nos. 41 to 46. Taxes were due for 10 quarters in respect of holding No. 46 and for six quarters for holdings Nos. 41 to 45. The "holding tax" was imposed under Sub- clause (a) of Section 82(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (VII of 1922), and the "latrine tax" purports to have been imposed under Sub-clause (e) of that section. The suit so far as it related to the tax on the holdings has been decreed. There is, however, it is said, a mistake in the decree and I shall deal with it later.

(2.) The main controversy is centered round the latrine tax, the claim for which has been dismissed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge on the ground that the imposition of such a tax on the holdings in question was ultra vires. 2. It is an admitted fact and it is clear from the register produced by the plaintiff, that all the six holdings are shops in the bazar of Dhanbad. Now, under Section 86 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act the latrine tax can only be imposed upon certain class of holdings and not on every holding. That section speaking about latrine tax says: (a) that the tax shall be imposed only on holdings containing dwelling houses, latrines, urinals or cesspools and on holdings containing shops or places of business in which, in the opinion of the Commissioners at a meeting, a latrine, urinal or cesspool is required.

(3.) It is not the case of the plaintiffs that these holdings contained dwelling houses, latrines, urinals or cesspools. Therefore, the latrine tax can only be imposed upon them if in the opinion of the Commissioners at a meeting, they or any one of them require latrines, urinals or cesspools. The contention of the - defendants has been that the condition precedent to the imposition of the latrine tax was not fulfilled and the Municipal Commissioners at a meeting did not form an opinion about the requirement of latrines, urinals or cesspools in respect of these holdings and therefore, these holdings are not included within the class or holdings on which latrine tax can be imposed. This contention has prevailed before the learned Small Cause Court Judge and it is against this part of his decision that the plaintiff has moved this Court.