Appeal No 327 of 1962
Appeal from the orders dated
July 5 1961 of the Mysore High Court Bangalore in Writ Petition No 556 of 1960
M C Setalvad Attorney General of India and Naunit Lal for the appellant
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India section T Desai and IN Shroff for the respondent
112 1962
October 23
The judgment of Das Kapur and Sarkar JJ was delivered by Sarkar J
The judgment of Hidyatullah and Dayal jj was delivered by Dayal J SARKAR J This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore which held that the respondent was not liable to pay any octroi duty to the appellant municipality in respect of dutiable goods brought to its factory as on a proper interpretation of the appellant s by law fixing the octroi limits the respondent s factory was outside those limits
The question that arises in this appeal is one of the interpretation of that by law
The appellant municipality was constituted under the Bombay District municipal Act 1901
Section 4 of the Act gives power to the Government to declare any local area to be a municipal district and to extend contract or otherwise alter the limits of any municipal district
Section 9 provides that there shall be a municipality for every municipal district
Section 59 of the Act inter alia provides that a municipality may subject to certain conditions impose an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption use or sale therein
In exercise of its powers under this section the appellant municipality imposed an octroi duty on certain goods
Section 48 of the Act gives a municipality power to frame by laws for various purposes including that of fixing octroi limits
The appellant municipality framed a by law under this Nation fixing octroi limits in these terms  The Octroi limits of the Municipal District shall be The same as the Municipal District
 The dispute is as to the meaning of the words Municipal District  in this by law
The respondent is a company owning a factory which prior to September 3 1959 was outside the 713 municipal district of the appellant municipality as such district was till then constituted
There is no dispute that the respondent has all along been bringing into its factory goods of the variety specified in the rule imposing the octroi duty for consumption and use therein but no duty was payable so long as the respondent s factory was outside the municipal district and therefore also admittedly outside the octroi limits as defined by the aforesaid by law
By a notification issued on August 25 1959 the Government of Mysore extended the municipal district of the appellant municipality with effect from September 3 1959 and as a result of this extension the respondent s factory came to be included within that district
On such extension the appel lant municipality demanded octroi duty on goods brought into the respondent s factory contending that the factory had thereupon come within its octroi limits as defined by the by law
The respondent disputed this contention and moved the High Court of Mysore under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant municipality to forbear from collecting the duty
The High Court did not accept the appellant municipality s contention and issued the writ
The question is whether upon the extension of the municipal district the factory came within the octroi limits as defined by the by law
The appellant municipality says it did and for these reasons The expression municipal district has not been defined in the by laws and therefore the definition of that expression in section 35 of the Act would by virtue of section 2O of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 apply in interpreting the by law
Under sub sec
5 of section 3 of the Act a municipal district means the municipal district of a municipality for the time being and hence the octroi limits prescribed by the by law would be the municipal district of the appellant municipality as constituted from time to time
Upon the extension 714 of the appellant municipality s municipal district therefore its octroi limits would stand extended and the factory would admittedly be within the extended limits
We are unable to accede to this contention
It is based on section 20 of the General Clauses Act
Now under that section expressions used in by laws are to have the same meaning as they have in the Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context
If there is any such repugnancy
 the definition in the Act cannot be resorted to for interpreting a by law
It seems to us that there is such repugnancy in the present case and this we now proceed to show
As we have earlier said
 a by law is made under section 48
That section provides that a by law can be made only with the sanction of the Government
Sub section 2 of  that section requires that Every Municipality shall before making any by law under this section publish    for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby a draft of the proposed by law
There are provisions enabling persons to make objections to or suggestions regarding a proposed by law and for these being considered by the municipality before it makes the by law and thereafter by the Government before it give  its sanction
It is therefore not open to much doubt that a by law made without the previous publication of its draft to the persons mentioned would be an invalid by law
Now who are these persons  They must be persons likely to be affected thereby that is by the by law they must be Persons whom the by law when made is likely to affect by its own terms  Since however anyone can send goods to places within the octroi limits all the world may in a sense be said to be affected by a by law fixing those limits
If all such persons were contemplated by section 48 2 then a by law fixing octroi limits to be valid would have to be published to all the world
715 This would be an impossibility and was clearly riot intended
Quite obviously publication to persons residing outside the municipal district as constituted when the by law was made or who were not the rate payers of the municipality was not contemplated
The present by law must therefore have been made without publication to such persons
It is not said that the respondent was not one of them
Now suppose the appellant municipality s contention was right
Then the by law would now bring within the octroi limits of the appellant municipality the respondent s factory and some other premises though the by law had not been published to the respondent or the owners of the premises
The respondent and all other such persons would then be affected by the by law though the by law bad not been published to them before it was made
Such a by law would be invalid under the Act
It would be invalid from the beginning and not only on the extension of the municipal district for it would be a by law not made in compliance with the provisions of section 48 and therefore not a by law validly made
But then it may be said that when made the by law did not affect any one to whom it had not been published and therefore it had been validly made
This argument seems to us to proceed on a misconception
The by law would still be invalid as contingently affecting persons to whom it had never been published namely those who resided outside the municipal district as constituted when the by law was made the contingency being the extension of the municipal district
Those persons would be contingently affected by the by law itself because the limits mentioned in it were capable of being extended to include them
They are so affected because the by law itself provided that the limits fixed by it would in a certain contingency stand extended
716 We therefore think that the expression  municipal district in the by law must be understood as referring to the municipal district as existing when the by law was framed
The context would prevent the definition in the Act being applied to interpret the by law
The by law cannot therefore refer to the municipal district as from time to time existing
Now it is not in dispute that if the octroi limits fixed by the by law are so understood then the respondent s factory has all along been outside those limits and the respondent cannot be made liable to pay octroi duty
It makes no difference that its factory is now within the municipal district of the appellant municipality for it is still outside its octroi limits
It was said that if the view that we have taken is right then no by law can ever affect people to whom it had not been published before it was made and if this is so then on the extension of a municipal district all the existing by laws would have to be re made for the added area for they could not affect the people there as to them ex hypothesis the by laws had not been published before they had been made
It was contended that such a result could not have been intended by the Act and therefore the view that we have taken is erroneous
As regards this argument we first observe that nothing has been brought to our notice from which it can be gathered that it was not the intention of the legislature that on the extension of the municipal district the by laws have not to be re enacted
If that was not the intention of the legislature then of course the entire foundation of the present argument would fail and it would require no further discussion
Let us however assume that it was intended that the existing by laws would apply to the added areas without fresh re enactment
If such was the intention that intention must necessarily be referrable to some provision in the Act
In such a case it would be 717 because of that provision of the Act that the by laws would be affecting people to whom they had not before their making been published and not by their own terms or force
From what we have said it does not follow that a by law cannot under some provision in the Act other than section 48 affect people to whom it had not been published before it was made
All that we have said is that a by law cannot be made under section 48 so as to affect people by its own terms or force unless to them it had been previously published
We are concerned only with the initial validity of a by law for interpreting the meaning of the words used in it
The argument for the appellant contemplates a situation where an existing valid by law is by an independent statutory provision made to affect people to whom it had not been published before it was made
With such a situation we are not conceded
We are unable to agree that if some provision of the Act exists which makes a valid by law applicable to the newly added areas of a municipality and to the residents there though to them the bylaw might not have been published before it was made it would follow that a by law could be validly made under the Act without previous publication to persons likely to be affected thereby
We repeat that if it cannot be so made the present by law cannot be read as including within the octroi limits the municipal district as extended from time to time
To do that would be to give it a meaning against its context and this the General Clauses Act does not warrant
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since at the time the municipal district was extended an opportunity had been given to the respondent to object  it could not now take any exception to the imposition of the octroi duty on the ground that it had no opportunity to object to the rule levying the duty or the by law fixing the octroi limits 718 when these were made
All this seems to us to be to no purpose
The respondent is not basing its objection to pay the octroi duty on this ground
All that it says is that it is not liable as its factory is not within the octroi limits
It raises a question of interpretation of the by law
The fact that the respondent could have objected to the extension of he municipal district is wholly irrelevant in interpreting the by law fixing the octroi limits and the only question in this case is of such interpretation
We may add that if a by law is invalid because it had not been published to persons likely to be affected by it it would not become valid when the municipal district of the municipality concerned was extended on notice to everyone entitled to object to the extension
Then it was said that the by law could not be amended for it could only be put in the same term in which it stands now as it is intended to put the entire municipal district within the octroi limits
The fallacy in this argument seems to us to be that even if a by law was framed in identical words now the content of it would be different the municipal district contemplated by the new by law would be different from that contemplated by the earlier one
Therefore in substance the by law would be a changed one inspite of the identity of its form
It would be different in effect
In the view that we have taken we think it unnecessary to pronounce upon the contention of the respondent that the definition in section 35 of the Act did not contemplate a municipal district as from time to time constituted
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
RAGHUBAR
DAYAL J We are of opinion that this appeal should be allowed
Section 591biv of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 Bom
Act3 of 1901 hereinafter 719 called the Act authorises any Municipality to impose an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption use or sale therein
The Bagalkot Municipality imposed this tax and provided under by law No 3 framed by it in the exercise of powers conferred under section 481j that the octroi limits of the Municipal District shall be the same as the Municipal District
This by law was framed prior to the extension of the limits of the Bagalkot Municipal District over which the Bagalkot Municipality had jurisdiction
The necessary declaration extending the aforesaid limits was made by the State Government under section 4 of the Act on August 25 1959
After the extension of the limits of the Municipal District the factory run by the respondent company came within the limits of the Municipal District in which the Bagalkot Municipality exercises control
The Municipality did not frame any new by law fixing afresh the octroi limits of the Municipal District
It however demanded octroi duty from the respondent company on the goods which were brought to the factory
The respondent company objected to the demand on the ground that the factory to which the goods were brought was beyond the octroi limits fixed under the by law framed by the Municipality and that the goods on which octroi was demanded were not brought within the octroi limits
It contended that in the absence of the
framing of any fresh by law fixing such octroi limits as would include the factory within them the Municipality could not claim octroi duty on the goods entering the factory
This contention found favour with the High Court which issued a mandamus to the Municipality to forbear from collecting any octroi in respect of goods delivered by the railway administration  at the factory premises and also directed the company to pay octroi on the goods carried by road at the point of entry and to get a refund of the octroi at the point 720 Where the goods left the octroi limits
were also issued to the Municipality for such refund
The Municipality has appealed against the J order of the High court
It is contended on its behalf that the octroi limits fixed under the by law framed by the Municipality extend up to the limits of the Municipal District as extended by the Government declaration of August 25 1959 and that there was no necessity for framing any fresh by law fixing new octroi limits
We have to determine the extent of the octroi limits of the Municipality as fixed under by law No 31 which reads   The octroi limits of the Municipal District shall be the same as the Municipal District
 The octroi limits fixed were coterminous with the limits of the Municipal District whatever they may be from time to time
If the limits of the Municipal District were extended the octroi limits would be the extended limits of the MunicipalDistrict and if the limits of the Municipal District were contracted the octroi limits would be similarly contracted
Section 35 defines municipal district  to mean any local area which is at present a municipal district and any local area Which may hereafter  be constituted a municipal district under section 4 if such municipal district has not ceased to exist under the provisions of the said section  Section 4 empowers the State Government subject to the pro visions of sections 6 7 and 8 to extend contract or other wise alter the limits of any municipal district from time to time
It is clear therefore and there is nothing in the section to indicate to the contrary that subsequent to the extension contraction or alteration of the limits there does not come into existence a new municipal district
The erstwhile muni 721 cipal district continues with this modification that its area is either extended or reduced or its limits are altered
Sub sections 2 and 3 provide inter alia for the setting forth clearly of the local limits included or excluded from existing municipal districts by notification and for erection and maintenance of boundary marks defining the altered limits of the municipal district
The municipal district as defined in section 35 of the Act therefore means the local area within its limits as fixed for the time being
In view of section 20 of the Bombay General Clauses Act the expression municipal district  in the by law will have the same meaning as that expression has in the Act unless there be anything repugnant in the subject or context
We do not find any such repugnancy in the context of the by law which would make the definition of the municipal district in the Act not applicable to the expression municipal district  in octroi by law No 3 The octroi duty is by nature a duty which is realised on goods entering certain limits over which the municipality charging the octroi has control
There is no reason why octroi duty  which is levied solely for the purpose of raising funds and not to afford protection to trade in any particular area be not charged from the same goods entering a certain part of the municipality that is to say there is no good reason why the limits within which goods on entry from beyond should pay octroi duty be different from the limits of the municipal district over which the municipality has control
The question then arises why cl
iv of sub section
1b of section 59 uses the expression octroi limits  instead of municipal district  an expression which is used with reference to some other taxes which the municipality can impose
The answer is found in the provisions of sections 39 and 81 of the Act
722 Clause b of section 39 empowers a municipality to enter into an agreement with another municipality cantonment authority local board panchayat or committee appointed for an area under Chapter XIV regarding levy of octroi duty whereby the octroi duties respectively leviable by the contracting bodies may be levied together instead of separately within the limits of the area subject to the control of the said bodies
Section 81 authorises any one of the contracting bodies to establish such octroi limits and octroi stations as may be deemed necessary for the entire area in which the octroi is to be collected
The limits of any such two contracting parties will not be common throughout and will not be identical with the limits of either of the municipal districts and therefore it would be necessary for the municipality which is to collect octroi duties under the agreement to fix the octroi limits for the entire area for the purpose of collecting octroi duties
Sub section 2 of section 77 provides for penalty for the evasion of octroi in cases of goods liable to the payment of octroi and passing into a municipal district without payment of such octroi
It is noticeable that it does not use the expression passing into tile octroi limits of a municipal district  but uses the expression passing into a municipal district 
The use of the expression octroi limits  in cl
iv of section 59 1b therefore need not lead to the conclusion that a municipality can pick and choose between its parts and exempt any part of it from the levy of octroi duty
It follows therefore that ordinarily octroi duty must be imposed on all good entering the limits of the municipal district controlled by the municipality
This is what by law No 3 framed by the appellant Municipality provides for
It is contended for the respondent that the Municipality cannot make a by law fixing such octroi 723 limits as vary from time to time
We see no good reason why it cannot do so
Further the by law No 31 fixed the limits of the municipal district to be the octroi limits
These are definite limits and vary only when an alteration is made by the Government in the limits of the municipal district and then too on account of the content of the expression municipal district 
The definition of municipal district  will be read into the definition of octroi limits  as required by the General Clauses Act and they will vary with that definition
The municipality does not exceed its jurisdiction to frame the by law fixing the octroi limits to vary from time to time according to the limits of the municipal district
No question of extending its jurisdiction arises in case the limits of the municipal district are contracted
No question of exceeding its jurisdiction arises if the limits are extended as at the time the by law would be applicable to the extended limits the municipality will have jurisdiction to make a by law applicable for that area
If it frames a by law in such a way as to be immediately effective in the area newly added to its limits it cannot be said to be exceeding its jurisdiction
just as the Act contemplates the extension of the limits of the municipal district and the application of its various provisions therein  the by laws made applicable within the area of the municipal district will be applicable to the extended area the moment any fresh area is added to the municipal district
We do not find anything in the Act or rules which disables the municipality to fix the octroi limits in this way or in other words which makes it incumbent on the Municipality to fix the octroi limits as frequently as the area of the municipal district is altered by a notification of the Government under section 4
There is nothing in the Act that the by laws duly framed by a municipality become null and void 724 and ineffective when the limits of the municipal district for which they were framed are extended
Such is not the contention for the respondent either
It is not contended that those by laws do not continue to be in force within the old limits of the municipal district
What is contended by the respondent is that they cannot apply to the new area added to the old municipal district  until the requisite procedure laid down for the framing of the by laws under sub sections
2 and 3 of section 48 has been followed as other wise the persons residing in the newly added area would have no occasion to object to the by laws which are sought to be made applicable to them
The sub sections are 2 Every Municipality shall before making any by law under this section publish in such manner as shall in their opinion be sufficient for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby a draft of the proposed bylaw together with a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and shall before making the bylaw receive and consider any objection or suggestion with respect to the draft which may be made in writing by any person before the date so specified
3 When any by law made by a Municipality is submitted to the Central Government State Government or Commissioner for sanction a copy of the notice published as aforesaid and of every objection or suggestion so made shall be submitted for the information of the Central Government State Government or Commissioner along with the said by law
 The respondent s contention is met for the appellant by reference to section 8 of the Act which affords an opportunity to the persons who entertain any objection to the proposal for including the proposed area 725 in the existing municipal district to file objections with reasons therefore within the specified period
It is urged for the respondent that no objection with respect to any particular by law or rule can be made at the time when the Government notifies objections against the proposal to extend the limits of a municipal district
There is nothing to bar such an objection
The objector can say that he would not like that area to be included in the municipality as it would make him and others liable to certain taxes which in the circumstances prevailing in that area would not be right and would be prejudicial to the residents of that area
This is the view taken by this Court in Rajnarain Singh vs The Chairman Patna Administration Committee Patna 1
In that case a certain local area was included within Patna City by a notification issued by the local Government under section 6 of the Patna Administration Act 1915 Bihar  Orissa Act 1 of 1915
There was no provision in that Act for the local Government notifying any objections from the residents of the area to be included within Patna against tile proposal for such inclusion
The validity of the notification was not questioned in that case
Shortly after the inclusion of the area within Patna the local Government issued a notification under section 3 1 f on April 23 1951 extending to Patna the provisions of section 104 of the Bihar  Orissa Municipal Act 1922 with some modifications and thereby made the residents of the newly added area subject to certain taxes
That notification was held to be bad because the local Government had brought about a change of policy by the modification made
It was said In our opinion the majority view was that an executive authority can be authorised to modify either existing or future laws but not in any essential feature
Exactly what constitutes an essential feature cannot be enunciated in general 1 1955 1SCR 290 301 303
726 terms and there was some divergence of view about this in the former case but this much is clear from the opinions set out aboveit cannot include a change of policy
Now coming back to the notification of 23rd April 1951
Its vires was challenged on many Grounds but it is enough for the purposes of this case to hold that the action of the Governor in subjecting the residents of the Patna Village area to municipal taxation without observing the formalities imposed by sections 4 5 and 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922 cuts across one of its essential features touching a matter of policy and so is bad
 It was further observed The notification of 23rd April 1951 does in our opinion effect a radical change in the policy of the Act
Therefore it travels beyond the authority which in our judgment section 3 1f confers and consequently it is ultra vires
 The change in policy was in the sense that the scheme of the Bihar  Orissa Municipal Act 1922 was that the people would not be made subject to the liability  of municipal taxation without being afforded an opportunity to object against such a proposal
The provisions of the 1922 Act referred to as guaranteeing this right to the people were stated to be sections 4 5 and 6 of that Act
Section 4 empowers the State Government to declare its intention to constitute or alter the limits of the municipality
Section 5 provides for taking into consideration objections submitted within the specified time after the aforesaid declaration and section 6 empowers the State Government by notification to constitute the municipality and to extend to it all or any of the provisions of that Act or to govern any local area in the municipality
727 It follows that under the present Act persons residing in an area to be included in the municipal district could file objections to the proposed inclusion of the area to the Municipal district on the ground that certain by laws imposing taxes will affect them adversely
Further sub s2 of s48 of the Act provides the publication of the by law proposed to be made for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby
The persons to be affected by the bylaw fixing octroi limits are not only the inhabitants of the municipality but include persons who bring goods into the municipality for consumption use or sale therein
In fact it is such persons who are the first to be affected by the levy of the octroi duty
They will have to pay it first
They may pass it on to the purchasers subsequently
It is to be presumed that the publication made at the time of the making of the by law fixing the octroi limits must have been such as had given notice to the persons other than the residents within the municipality
Such persons could file objections against the proposed by laws
It follows therefore that the residents of the area subsequently added to a municipality an area which is bound to be adjacent to the original area cannot effectively contend that they had no opportunity of objecting to the making of the by law
Further the provisions of these sub sections can have reference only to the occasion when bylaws are to be framed or amended and can have no effect on the question of the applicability of the bylaws to the newly added area of the municipal district
In the absence of any express provision in the Act to the effect that no rule or by law shall be applicable to the newly added area till it is freshly enacted after following the regular procedure we are not prepared to accept this contention air its acceptance would mean that the municipality becomes 728 liable for discharging its functions under the Act with respect to matters it has to deal with in that area and would be deprived of the necessary powers which it possesses for enabling it to discharge those functions properly till it has re enacted all the old by laws
Section 59 of the Act refers to the imposition of taxes naturally for the purpose of obtaining funds to meet the municipality s obligations within the district under its authority
Residents within an area of the municipal district cannot therefore avoid the liability to pay a tax merely on the ground that when that tax was imposed the area in which they reside was not included within the municipal district
The legislature could not have intended the exemption of such persons from payment of the tax when it provided for the extension of the limits of a municipal district but did not expressly provide for the applicability of the rules and by laws then in force to the newly added area or for the liability of the residents of the newly added area to the taxes then in force within the municipal district and for the reimposition of such taxes and the remaking of such rules and by laws in accordance with the prescribed procedure
We are of opinion that the extension of the limits of the municipal district connotes that the area newly added to the municipal district comes not only under the control of the municipality but also becomes subject to such laws rules and by laws which be in force within the municipal district
Lastly reference may be made to section 191B in Chapter XIV A
It provides inter alia that when any local area is added to a municipal district the State Government may notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force by order published in the official gazette provide for the extension and commencement 729 of all or any taxes rules by laws  or forms made issued imposed or granted under the Act by any existing municipality and in force within its area immediately before the day from which the local area was included to the municipal district to and in all or any of the other areas of the successor district municipality in supersession of corresponding taxes rules by laws it  any in force in such other areas immediately before the aforesaid day until the matters so extended and brought into force are further superseded or modified under the Act
No order under this provision seems to have been issued by the State Government
The provision however indicates that the compliance of the procedural provisions mentioned in sub section
2 of s48 of the Act is not a necessary condition for the existing by laws of a municipality to apply to the areas included in it at a later time
If such an order is issued by the Government that clarifies the position
its enact ment however does not mean that in the absence of such an order all the matters mentioned in clx of sub s1 of s19B will not Ineffective in the area included in a municipal district under a notification under s4 of the Act
We bold that the octroi limits fixed under bylaw No 3 include the area newly added to the municipal district by the notification of August 25 959 and that consequently the respondent company as liable to pay octroi duty on the goods entering its premises
We would therefore allow this appeal with costs set aside the order of the Court below and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent
By COURT  In accordance with the opinion of the majority this appeal is dismissed with costs


Summary:
The appellant municipality imposed octroi duty on certaingoods brought within the octroi limits
The by laws fixed the octroi limits to be the same as the Municipal District
Section 4 of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 under which the municipality was constituted empowered the Government to declare any local area to be 1 municipal district
At the time of the imposition of the octroi duty the respondent s factory was situated outside the municipal district and was not subject to the octroi duty
Subsequently the Government extended the municipal district so that the factory came to be included within that district
The appellant contended that upon such extension its octroi limits also stood extended to include the factory and the respondent became liable to pay octroi duty in respect of goods brought into the factory
711 Held per Das Kapur and Sarkar jj Hidayatullah and Dayal jj dissenting that octroi duty was not leviable on the respondent
The expression municipal district in the by
law referred to the municipal district as existing when the bylaw was framed
The context prevented the definition of municipal district in the Act namely the municipal district as from time to time existing from being applied under s20 of the Bombay General Clauses Act to interpret the by law
The by law had been made without being published to the respondent and if it was so read referring to the municipal district from time to time existing it would be invalid for non compliance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act
Per Hidayatullah and Dayal JJ
The octroi limits fixed under the by laws included the area newly added to the municipal district and the respondent was liable to pay octroi duty on the goods entering its premises
In view of section 20 of the Bombay General Clauses Act the expression municipal district in the by law will have the same mean ing as that expression has in the Act
There is nothing repugnant in the subject or context which would make this definition inapplicable
At the time when the municipal district was extended notice was published to the respondent and it could have objected to the inclusion of the area on the ground that the bye law imposing the octroi duty would affect it adversely
There is no express provision in the Act that no rule or by law shall be applicable to the newly added area till it is freshly enacted
Rajnarain Singh vs The Chairman Patna Administration Committee Patna  referred to