APPEAL COMMITTEE ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY Vs. COMMISSIONER ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
APPEAL COMMITTEE ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY
Click here to view full judgement.
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. -
(1.) The petitioner asks for a writ of Mandamus to restrain the Chairman and the Com missioner of the Anakapalle Municipality from placing tax appeals before the Municipal Council and also from giving effect to the decisions, which the Council reached on 28-3-1963 in certain tax appeals.
(2.) The salient facts are, few and may briefly be stated as follows: The Anakapalle Municipal Council consists of 28 members. There appears to have been some faction among the members. This seems to lie at the root of the present writ petition.
(3.) On 22-9-1960 a meeting of the Municipal Council was called as desired by a section of the Council. The purpose for which the meeting was desired by this section of the members was to constitute certain committees and delegate to them the powers of the Municipal Council in certain matters. This meeting was presided over by the Chairman, who is the 2nd respondent herein. It appears that a member raised a point for order, stating that the resolution contemplated to be moved at the meeting would constitute an encroachment on the powers of the Commissioner and Chairman of the Municipality. The Chairman appears to have readily agreed with this view and declared that the meeting was dissolved. This was not agreed to by fifteen members of the Council. They, therefore, continued the meeting even though the Chairman had left; and passed a resolution appointing several committees, one of which was designated as "Appeals Committee", which was invested with the power to hear tax appeals preferred to the Municipal Council. The validity of the resolution appears to have been doubted by the Commissioner (1st respondent). He referred it to the Government; but the Government stated that the resolution was good and the point of order raised at the meeting of 22-9-1960 was unsustainable and that the ruling given by the Chairman, who presided over the meeting, was not valid. The Government is alleged to have upheld the validity of the resolution appointing the Committees and to have directs ed that further steps be taken to give effect to the resolution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.