Pathak, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave raises the question whether the rules for the levy of a rate on buildings and lands can be said to be published under S. 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 if the notice published in a newspaper reciting the sanction of the State Government to the rules mentions that the rules themselves are open to inspection in the Municipal office and that copies of the rules can also be purchased there.
(2.) The Rajkot Borough Municipality framed Draft rules for the levy of rates on buildings and lands in Rajkot. The Draft rules were published and objections were invited, and thereafter the State Government accorded its sanction to the rules. In the issue dated November 28, 1964 of "Jai Hind", a Gujarati newspaper published from Rajkot, a notice was published purporting to be under S. 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 as adopted and applied to the Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"), for the information of persons holding buildings and immovable property within the Municipal limits of Rajkot that the Municipality had resolved to enforce the "Rules of the Rajkot Borough Municipality for the levy of Rate (Tax) on Buildings and Lands" sanctioned by the State Government of Gujarat with effect from January 1, 1965. The Notice recited the date and serial number of the sanction. It also stated: "These rules can be inspected at the office of the Municipality on all days other than Holidays during office hours; moreover copies of the rules can be purchased at the Municipal office." It appears that thereafter an assessment list was prepared and steps were taken to demand the tax.
(3.) The appellant, a registered partnership firm, instituted a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot, praying for a declaration that the aforesaid rules were invalid, and that the consequent assessment list and the related notices of demand were without authority of law. A permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the Municipality from giving effect to the rules. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted the declaration and injunction prayed for. An appeal against the decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot. A second appeal was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Rajkot, (the Municipal Borough of Rajkot having been so renamed) in the High Court, and at the time of admission a learned single Judge of the High Court formulated three questions of law arising in the appeal. The appeal was referred subsequently to a larger Bench. A Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court took up the case and observed at the outset that the only question which required consideration at that stage was whether the Courts below had erred in striking down the rules on the ground that they had not been published as required by S. 77 of the Act. The learned Judges held that the Courts below had taken an erroneous view of the statute and that, in their opinion, the conditions of S. 77 of the Act had been satisfied in the case. The case was sent back to the learned single Judge with that opinion for disposal in accordance with law.;