D. Basu, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against a resolution dated February 20, 1966, passed by the Commissioner of the Joynagar -Majilpur Municipality enhancing the rate of holdings from 5 to 10%. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 and Respondents Nos. 4 to 11 are the Commissioners of the Municipality and Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are some of the rate -payers thereof. They challenge the validity of the resolution enhancing the rate on two grounds, which have been urged at the hearing, as follows: (a) That the said resolution was rescinded by another resolution passed by the Commissioners at a special meeting held on May 22, 1966, so that the impugned resolution enhancing the taxes had no legal existence and could no longer be enforced, and (b) that the enhanced rate in question cannot be recovered, inasmuch as the budget for the year which contained the estimated receipts and expenditures was not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for instance Ss. 113 and 113A.
(2.) So far as the first point is concerned, the controversy centres round the validity of the special meeting held on May 22, 1966, upon which the Petitioners rely. It appears that 4 of the II members of the Municipality first requested the Chairman of the Municipality to convene a special meeting under Sec. 78 of the Act to consider the hardship caused by the enhancement of the rate in question. This notice was duly served upon the remaining Commissioners as required by law. But the Chairman or the Vice -Chairman having failed to convene the special meeting as required in the proposal, the conveners resorted to the provision of Sub -section (2) of Sec. 78 of the Act and proposed to hold a special meeting on May 22, 1966, at 4 -30 p.m., at the municipal office to discuss, inter alia, the impugned resolution and to have it rescinded on the ground of hardship etc. A resolution of rescission was eventually passed by five of the Commissioners.
(3.) The Respondents urged that the proceedings of the special meeting were invalid inasmuch as it was held on May 22, 1966, which was declared a municipal holiday by the Vice -Chairman on account of the death of the Chairman which took place in the meantime. The order in question is at annEx. P to the counter -affidavit which says - - the office of the Municipality with all its departments shall remain closed on today and tomorrow, i.e., 21st and 22nd May, 1966, as a mark of respect to our departed Chairman. It is contended by the Petitioners that though the rooms of the municipal building were thus closed and they could not obtain access thereto, nevertheless, they held the proposed special meeting on the verandah of the municipal building and that, accordingly, it was properly held. The question eventually comes to the legal effect of a holiday being declared by annEx. P as aforesaid. When 'the municipal office with all its departments' remains closed, the natural result will be that no official business can be transacted. It was urged on behalf of the Petitioners that as a matter of practice meetings are usually held on holidays. The validity of the other proceedings which have been so held on holidays is not before this Court and if they are illegal as to which no pronouncement can be made herein, merely because they have been so held, the impugned meeting cannot be validated. Holding of a special meeting cannot be anything other than an official business of the Commissioners of the Municipality and once it is acknowledged that the Vice -Chairman has power to declare a holiday closing all the offices of the Municipality, the effect of such order will be nullified if the meeting, whether general or special, is held on such holiday.;