K.C.Das Gupta, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner Sree Sree Sridhar Jieu is the admitted owner of premises which formerly bore Nos. 128, 129, 130, 131/1, 131/2 and 132, Canning Street, on the basis that these were six distinct premises. They were valued for the purposes of assessment of the consolidated rate at Rs. 1360/-, 702/-, 345/-, 518/-, 270/-, 324/- and 810/- respectively and in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the assessment of the consolidated rate was at 181/2 per cent. of the annual valuation for premises No. 128 and at 151/2 per cent. of the annual valuation for the other five premises. On the 20th September, 1956, a notice was served on the petitioners stating that it Was proposed to amalgamate these six premises into one premises and allot thereto No. 128. Ultimately, this proposal of amalgamation was carried into effect and the Corporation authorities treated the six premises as one, allotted to it the No. 128 and proceeding thereafter to value it for the purpose of assessment of the rate, issued a notice on the 9th January, 1957 informing the petitioners that the amalgamated premises had been valued at Rs. 4465/-. The petitioners in their attempt to get rid of this have sought the assistance of this Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the several notices and from forbearing to give effect to the amalgamation of the premises and also a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of amalgamation and for an order restraining the respondents from taking any further action. A Rule as prayed for was issued by Sinha J. but ultimately that Rule has been discharged. It is against this order of discharge that the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) There is really one question for decision, that is, whether the amalgamation which has been carried out by the Corporation authorities of six separate and distinct premises into one was done under any powers conferred on them by the statute. It is well-settled that when a corporation is created by the legislature of the State, we have to look to the statute creating the corporation not only to find out the purposes for which the corporation has been created but also the powers which the corporation has been vested with. The argument on which the present petitioners based their contention before Sinha J. and again before this Court was that the statute in question, namely, the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, has not conferred any power on the Corporation authorities to effect any such amalgamation. To this, the respondent, the Corporation of Calcutta, replies that such power, though not expressly given, has been conferred on the Corporation by implication in Section 175 and Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 207 (2). If there has been any such conferment of the power of amalgama ting a number of premises into one, it is only by implication in Section 175 and Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 207(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine the other provisions of the Act in search for any such power. Sinha J. came to the conclusion that though there is no express conferment of any such power, it should be held that by implication the Legislature has given this power of amalgamation to the Corporation authorities. He has not in his judgment in the present case mentioned any detailed reasons for his view but has referred to his previous decision in the case of Arathoon Mackertoon Arathoon v. Corporation of Calcutta, and has said that though in that case he left the point open, he saw no reason to change the opinion which he indicated in that case. Turning to the report of Arathoon's case, I find that Sinha J. was of opinion that the provision for amalgamation was not a provision imposing a tax and consequently the Court is not limited by the actual words of the section but can look further a field to find out what was, intended. Holding on the authorities that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts as are essentially necessary to its execution, he held that the power of amalgamation does exist. This is how the learned Judge expresses himself: "I do not think that we are here dealing with a provision of law imposing a tax. The consolidated rate has been imposed in a different part of the Act and nobody is questioning it. Amalgamation certainly affects the calculation o the rate. But amalgamation entails many other consequences under the Act. It is primarily made for purposes of assessment, but there are many results which have nothing to do with assessment. I am inclined to hold that the power of amalgamation exists and should be held to exist by reasonable implication. But I am not called upon finally to decide this point in these applications, which may be disposed of upon a preliminary point." With great respect to the learned Judge, I am un able to agree that the provisions which we have now to construe are not taxing provisions. It is, in my opinion, unreasonable and unrealistic to treat these sections divorced from their context. The scheme of the Calcutta Municipal Act is that after providing for the formation of the Corporation and laying down the purposes which the Corporation will nave to carry out, the Legislature went on to provide for the collection of the necessary finance which is the sine qua non for carrying out any purpose. The fourth part of the Act is headed, 'Taxation.' While Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, XV and XVI of this part contain provisions for taxes on other things and animals, Chapter XI is solely concerned with the imposition of consolidated rate on lands and buildings. This Chapter which starts with Section 165 and ends with Section 207 provides first for a graduated consolidated rate on the annual valuation, the rate not to exceed 15 per cent. where the annual valuation does not exceed Rs. 1000/-, 18 per cent. where it is between Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/-, 22 per cent. where it is between Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 12000/- and 23 per cent. where it exceeds Rs. 12000/-, with the further proviso that where the annual valuation exceeds Rs. 3000/-, it may be increased upto 33 per cent. with the approval of the State Government. The percentage for any particular year has to be fired by the Corporation annually. The other provisions of the Chapter then go on to lay down the rules as to how lands and buildings should be valued for the purpose of assessment. There are provisions for exemption from valuation for certain lands and buildings for certain reasons, and other provisions which need not be set out. Mention must, however, be made of the provision in Section 174 of the Act as regards sub-division of a land or building for the purpose of valuation. It is helpful to remember that the unit for the purpose of valuation for assessment to the consolidated rate is one single premises as numbered by the Corporation authorities. The accepted position appears to be that to each single premises one single number is allotted and for the premises indicated by that single number one valuation is made. Section 174 provides that if the ownership of any land or building is sub-divided into separate shares, the Commissioner may, in accordance with the rules made by the Standing Committee, divide the valuation of the land or building in a particular manner. Where the Commissioner on such application thinks fit to assess the portions separately, separate numbers have to be allotted. There is provision also, how ever, of apportioning the assessment among the share-holders without assigning any separate number. It appears to be reasonable to think that without such sub-division, and allotment of separate numbers under the provisions of Section 174, a land or building forming the unit of valuation for the purpose of assessment, will have only one municipal number. When such sub-division is effected, a land or building which had formed the unit of valuation will get two or more municipal numbers.
(3.) It is easy to see that such sub-division would affect the proceeds of the consolidated rate, as on sub-division, the several premises which have come into existence in place of one premises will be ordinarily assessed to a lesser rate even though the total valuation remains the same. This is the inevitable consequence of the provision as set out earlier that the percentage of valuation at which the consolidated rate will be fixed will rise gradually with the rise of valuation after fixed stages.;