GUJARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of appeals arises out of judgment dated October 9, 1980 passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court holding that Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 in its application to Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat was a valid piece of legislation. Section 406 of the Act we may set out here and now :

(2.) 'Judge' is defined in Section 2(29) of the Act to mean in the City of Ahmedabad the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes or such other Judge of the Court as the Chief Judge may appoint in his behalf and in any other City the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having jurisdiction in the City. Section 406 suffered some amendments. In sub-section (2) for the words "shall be heard" were substituted by "shall be entertained". Proviso to clause (e) of sub-section (2) was first added by Gujarat Amendment 5 of 1970. This proviso (as it now exists) was then substituted by Gujarat Amendment 1 of 1979.

(3.) Appellants in all these appeals own properties in the City of Ahmedabad, they are liable to pay property tax which is a tax on buildings and lands in the City. Property tax is revisable every four years. When last revision took place, appellants challenged those assessments in appeals which they filed before the Judge under Section 406(1) of the Act after bills were presented by the Municipal Corporation to them. During the pendency of appeals before the Judge, appellants prayed for stay of recovery of the property tax. In view of proviso to clause (e) of Section 406(2) of the Act, the Judge could not give effective interim relief to the appellants as exemption from payment of property tax could not be more than 25% of the amount of the property tax demanded from the appellants. The appellants therefore challenged the constitutional validity of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 406 contending that it was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.