Under Section 28C, the BDA was given the status of a local body to companylect the cess payable under the various Acts specified in the said Section and Section 7 of the Amending Act validated all the companylection made by the BDA which was declared as without authority of law by the earlier judgment of the High Court.
By these amendments, the BDA was statutorily entrusted with the obligation of providing certain civic amenities specified in Section 28A of the Act and in Section 28B, the BDA was specifically empowered to levy and companylect property tax in the same manner and at the same rate as was provided in the Corporation Act.
By this Amending Act, Sections 28 A, 28 B and 28 C were incorporated in the said Act.
After the said judgment of the Division Bench, an Ordinance was promulgated which later became an Act of the Legislature whereby the principal BDA Act came to be amended by the Bangalore Development Authority Amendment Act, 1993.
The said finding of the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed by the appellate Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.223 39/92.
For this proposition the appellant strongly placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi Anr.
In the said judgment the majority, while upholding the validity of the delegated legislation and negativing the companytention of excessive delegation, among other factors, found that delegation to an elected body was in itself a safe way of delegation because an elected body responsible to the people including those who pay taxes would act responsibly in the exercise of the said delegated power.
The said challenge being negatived by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
1968 3 SCR 251 .
