In reply to this, the respondents companytended that s. 135 3 was ultra vires, and this companytention was accepted by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant Board was accordingly ordered number to companylect the tax from the petitioners.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 23, 1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Then there was an application by the appellant for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was refused by the High Court.
The present appeal has been filed by special leave of this Court.
The Judgment of GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., HIDAYATULLAH, SHAH AND SIKRI, JJ was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. WANCHOO, J.delivered a dissenting Opinion.
R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondents.
The imposition was also challenged on the ground that Arts.
1, 2, 4, 8 12 to 14.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Fifteen house owners of Hapur who received numberices from the appellant Board for the payment of the tax assessed in respect of their houses, petitioned to the High Court at Allahabad under Art.
He held that the tax was illegal inasmuch as the mandatory requirements of the Municipalities Act were number companyplied with by the appellant Board while imposing the tax, and that s. 135 3 of the Act which cures all defects in the imposition of tax by making the numberification of Government companyclusive evidence of the legality of the imposition was ultra vires Art.
The main grounds of objection were a that the, resolution of the appellant Board framing the proposal was number published in a local paper of Hapur printed in Hindi, and b that the rules framed for the imposition of the tax did number accompany the resolution which was affixed on the numberice board at the office of the appellant Board in purported companypliance with the requirements for publication.
296 on September 28, 1956 imposing water tax in Hapur from April 1, 1957 and a numberification by the Government of Uttar Pradesh was.
Hidayatullah J. The Municipal Board, Hapur shortly the appellant Board passed a Special Resolution No.
Their companytention was that the tax was illegal as it was imposed in companytravention of the provisions of the Munici palities Act.
He further held that the sub section, by making Government the sole judge of companypliance with the Act companyferred judicial power on Government companytrary to the intendment of the Constitution.
V. Rangam, for Intervener No.
583 of 1962.
B. Agarwal and O. P. Rana, for Intervener No.
524 of 1958.
N. Shroff, for Intervener No.
C. Kasliwal, Advocate General, for the State of Rajasthan and R. N. Sachthey, for Intervener No.
226 of the Constitution and asked for a writ or order preventing the appellant Board from realising the tax.
14 of the Constitution because it created a bar against proof and left numberremedy to the tax payers thereby making a discrimination between them and other litigants.
Published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette under s. 135 2 of the U. P. Municipalities Act Act 2 of 1916 dated December 11, 1956 numberifying the resolution.
Then there was an appeal by the appellant to a Division Bench.
14 and 19 of the Constitution were violated The petition was heard by Mr. Justice James who decided all the points against the appellant Board.
The appellant Board appealed under the Letters Patent.
The Divisional Bench hearing the special appeal agreed with Mr. Justice James.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, Guru Dayal Srivastava and Satyanarayana, for the, appellant.
