Shelat, J. - (1.) These four appeals by certificate from the High Court at Bombay raise common questions of law and are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. As the facts in all these appeals are similar it is not necessary to narrate the facts of each appeal. However, for appreciating the contentions raised in these appeals we propose to set out only the relevant facts in Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 1966 as typical.
(2.) By a notification dated October 30, 1959 the Government of Bombay proposed to set up a local area comprising of parts of Shahad, Ambernath and other villages into a municipal district under the name of the Municipal District of Ulhasnagar, the limits of which were set out in a Schedule thereto. After considering the objections to the said proposal the Government by another notification dated September 20, 1960 issued under Sections 4 and 7 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901 declared the said local area as the Municipal District with effect from April 1, 1960. By the said notification the Government also set up an interim Municipality for Ulhasnagar, consisting of 18 Councilors with effect from November 1, 1960 for one year in the first instance or till an elected body took over, whichever was earlier. Under Section 46 of the Act the first respondent Municipality became entitled to frame rules and bye-laws in relation to taxes it proposed to impose. Accordingly, it framed Rules and in particular the House Tax Rules, with which these appeals are concerned. On November 8, 1963 the Municipality served a notice under S. 65 (1) of the Act informing the appellant Company that it proposed to assess its buildings at Rs. 1,97,609/52. On November 28, l963 the appellant Company submitted its objections to the said assessment and the said bill. On February 22, 1964 the assessing officer requested the appellant Company to furnish to him the cost of construction of its factories and buildings and on the appellant Company failing to do so he passed his order dated March 6, 1964 assessing the appellant Company to house tax at Rupees 1,13,647 for the period from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. On March 20, 1964 the Municipality served a house tax bill for the said amount. Similar house tax bills were served on the other appellant companies. Thereupon the appellant Company in Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 1966 and the appellant companies in other appeals filed writ petitions in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227of the Constitution alleging that the said notifications, the said assessment and the said bills were invalid and should be quashed. On April 20, 1964 the High Court issued a rule nisi against the respondent municipality in all the said petitions, but summarily dismissed the said petitions so far as respondents 2, 4 and 6 were concerned and also restricted the rule only to certain grounds in the petitions. The petitions were resisted by the municipality on several grounds, viz., that they were not maintainable, that the proper remedy for the appellants was by way of appeal in the Court of the first class judicial magistrate, as provided by the Act, that he municipality was competent to levy the said tax under S. 59, that the said notifications were valid, that the tax was properly levied, that the assessing officer under Section 67-A was authorised to prepare, finalise and authenticate the assessment list and that the same was properly done. The appellant company, on the other hand, urged before the High Court (1) that the said rules were ultra vires as they did not provide for the basis for the fixation of valuation; (2) that the valuation was arrived at a flat rate on the carpet area, a method which was not permissible in law; (3) that, in any event, the Municipality was not entitled to tax open lands; (4) that the assessment was bad on account of discrimination between the appellant companies inter se inasmuch as whereas assessment was made in the case of the Century Mills on the basis of cost of construction the assessment in respect of other appellant companies was made at a flat rate on the carpet area occupied by them; (5) that the register prepared under Section 65 became operative after the date of the authentication of the said list and that therefore the tax for the period prior to the said date was illegal; (6) that the tax was imposed by the Municipality which had no legal existence as the tenure of one year of its councillors was over by September 30, 1961 and that therefore the said rules were ineffective and lastly that the appointment of the President and the Vice President of the respondent Municipality was illegal. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding (1) that the said Rules were valid; (2) that the principles of valuation were not modes of valuation and therefore it was not necessary to lay down in the said Rules methods by which the valuation should be arrived at; (3) that the assessment list was proper; (4) that though under the said Rules only houses and buildings and not open lands could be taxed it was impossible to say in writ petition without a detailed enquiry as to whether the tax in fact was levied on open lands or as adjuncts to their factories merely because their valuation was separately made and that therefore such a question should be more properly raised in the appeals filed by the Companies; (5) (a) that the Municipality was entitled to levy tax for the official year 1963-64, (b) that the appointment of the said President and Vice President was valid and lastly that the respondent Municipality though an interim municipality wag competent to levy the said tax.
(3.) Mr. Gupta for the Century Mills raised the following contentions which were adopted by Counsel for the other companies; (1) that the said notifications were invalid having regard to Sections 4 and 7 of the Act: (2) that the House Tax Rules were not in conformity with Sections 59 to 63; (3) that the bill served on the Mills was not in accordance with the Rules:(a) to the extent that the said bill sought to assess open lands, (b) that the flat rate method on carpet area was not permissible as it was not a recognised method of determining the annual letting value and (c) that the assessing officer had arrived at the annual letting value on the basis of construction cost without giving an opportunity to the Company to be heard on such cost; (4) that as the authentication was made to the assessment list on March 6, 1964 it could not operate under the said Rules for assessment for the period prior thereto, viz., April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964 and lastly; (5) that the assessment suffered from discrimination inasmuch as the assessing officer assessed the Century Mills on the basis of construction cost while he did so in the case of the other companies at a flat rate on the carpet area occupied by them. ;