RAJNARAIN SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN PATNA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of tne Constitution by one Rajnarain Singh, who styles himself as Secretary to the Rate Payers' Association, resident of village Yarpur in the district of Patna. He has prayed for an appropriate writ or direction against the opposite party, who is the Chairman of tne Patna Administration Committee, for restraining him from proceeding with the realisation of municipal taxes from the petitioner and other members of the Rate Payers' Association, or from enforcing the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, as modified and extended by notifications dated 25-4-1931, & the 25-4-1951, and similar other notifications to the area in which the petitioner and the members of his association reside, and for quashing the said notifications.

(2.) The material facts are that in 1911, when the province of Bihar and Orissa was originally constituted the municipal legislation applicable to the province was the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884 (Bengal Act 3 of 1884), and the said Act with modifications from time to time continued to apply to the province. The Bihar and Orissa Legislature subsequently enacted the Patna Administration Act, 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act 1 of 1915). This Act was made applicable to Patna, and the area and the boundaries thereof were specified in the schedule to the Act, the said area being subject to exclusion or inclusion of any other local area by notification of the Local Government under Section 6 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act authorised the Local Government to impose in Patna any tax which could be imposed there by the Municipal Commissioners, if Patna were' a municipality constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884. Clause (f) of Section 3 (1) of the Act further authorised the local Government to extend to Patna the provisions of any section of the said Act subject to such restrictions and modifications as the Local Government might think fit; and under Section 5 it was also provided that the Local Government might at any time cancel or modify any order under Section 3. As I shall show later, these two provisions of the Act as embodied in Sections 3 (1) (f) and 5, have been very seriously attacked by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The Local Government from time to time under various notifications purporting to act on the authority of the said provisions extended to Patna certain sections of the aforesaid Municipal Act. In 1922 the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (Act 7 of 1922) was enacted, and came into force with effect from 1-1-1923, under Government notification dated 22-11-1922. It extended to the whole of the province of Bihar including the Santal Parganas. By virtue of this Act, the whole of the Bengal Municipal Act applicable to the province of Bihar and Orissa stood repealed. In consequence of this statute, the Patna Administration Act also came to be amended by the Bihar and Orissa Act 4 of 1928, and in place of the words "Bengal Municipal Act 1884" the words "Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922" were substituted in Section 3 (1) (a) of the Patna Administration Act. This change took place undoubtedly after six years of the passing of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. The result of this change in the Patna Administration Act was that the Provincial Government acquired authority by virtue of Section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to extend to Patna the provisions of any section of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act subject, to such restrictions and modifications as it thought proper, and also by virtue of Section 5 of the Act to cancel or modify any such order made under Section 3. On 25-4-1931, the Government of Bihar and Orissa published a notification in the local official Gazette. The notification purports to have been made in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Patna Administration Act and by this notification the Government of Bihar and Orissa were pleased to extend to Patna the sections of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act according to the specification which followed in the body of the notification and in the modified form shown therein. The said notification also cancelled all the previous notifications extending to Patna the sections of the Bengal Municipal Act 1884 and the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922. In the said notification the various sections of the Act, as modified by the Provincial Government in appropriate cases, are mentioned from chapter to chapter. The notification is thus a self-contained legislation in itself. This procedure adopted by the Provincial Government has also been seriously questioned on behalf of the petitioner, and it has been urged that the Provincial Government has in making this notification usurped the functions of the legislature, which it had no authority to do the Government being a mere delegate of the legislative body for administrative purposes. On 11-4-1951, by a Gazette notification the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act were extended to certain other local areas including the area in which the petitioner resides. It also appears that on 25-4-1951, there was a further notification by the Government of Bihar in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Patna Administration Act under which the Governor of Bihar applied to Patna Section 104, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (Act 7 of 1922) in a modi-fled form. The Patna Municipal Corporation Act 1951 (Act 13 of 1952) came into force on the 26th of July, 1952, and under Section 2 of the Act the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922 was withdrawn from the local area comprised within the Patna City Municipality and the Patna Administration Act 1915 stood repealed but the withdrawal or abolition did not affect the validity of anything done of suffered or obligation or liabilities created under those Acts before the operation of the new statute. The complaint of the petitioner is that by virtue of these notifications he has been seriously prejudiced on account of the extension of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act to the area in which the petitioner and the members of his association reside.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner that Sections 13 (1) (f) and 5 of the Patna Administration Act and the notification dated 25-4-1931, in pursuance thereof are void on the ground of delegated legislation. The Local Government under Section 3 (1) (f) undoubtedly enjoyed very large powers to extend to Patna the provisions of any section of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act subject to such restrictions and modifications as the Local Government thought fit. These restrictions and modifications might be very far reaching in their character, and it is submitted that some of them are indeed very far reaching, and Section 5 further authorised the Local Government at any time to cancel or to modify any order under Section 3. This, according to the petitioner, amounted to vesting the Local Government with full legislative powers to make any and every change they liked and to apply the Patna Municipal Act in any shape and form. Indeed the changes effected in the Act might metamorphose the Municipal Act into a completely new legislation. It is to be borne in mind that in pursuance of these modifications the notification dated 25-4-1931, was published by the Local Government, and this notification itself shows that, according to the petitioner, vast changes have been made in the Municipal Act; many of the provisions of the Municipal Act have been omitted, while several others have been substantially changed or altered. He points out, for instance, that Section 12, Municipal Act has been altered, and there is no provision for a body of Municipal Commrs. as contemplated by the Act. Sections 13 and 23 and various other sections of the Act have been omitted, and substantial changes have been introduced in Section 98, which is one of the vital sections, in regard to the assessment of taxes on the annual value of holdings.