Writ Petition Crl No 124 of 1988 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India MC Kapadia YP Dhingra BK Satija and SS Khanduja for the Petitioner
PS Poti and MN Shroff for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R After hearing learned counsel for the parties at quite some length we are satisfied that the failure on the part of the State Government to consider and decide the representation made to them by the petitioner against his detention by an order of detention dated 11th June 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Police Surat City under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 makes his continued detention invalid and constitutionally impermissible
Apart from various other contentions Shri Kapadia learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that there was no explanation at all as to why the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government was not attended to and kept pending
In view of the wholly unexplained and unduly long delay rather the undeniable failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of the representation renders the detention of the petitioner illegal
On the view that we take there is no need to deal with various contentions 830 raised by him on behalf of the petitioner
The learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 8e of the Writ Petition where the petitioner avers inter alia that he had made a representation dated 15th July 1987 to the Police Commissioner Surat City as also to the State Government but both the authorities had not considered the representation so made with utmost promptitude and that there was in fact no disposal of the said representation by the detaining authority as well as the State Government 
This assertion of his is sought to be met by the Commissioner of Police Surat City the detaining authority in the counter affidavit
It is averred in paragraph IIIe that he had received the representation on 21st July 1987 and rejected it on the same day after due consideration
This is not a substantial compliance of the constitutional rights enshrined in article 225 of the Constitution
The petitioner had the right not only to make a representation to the detaining authority but also to the State Government which had the power of revocation
In view of this Shri PS Poti learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government with his usual fairness rightly accepts that the denial in paragraph IIIe of the counter affidavit was not sufficient
The fact remains that the allegation made by the petitioner that he had made a further representation to the State Government has not been controverted
The State Government has disdained from filing any counter affidavit for obvious reasons
In Mohinuddin vs District Magistrate Beed  Ors  this Court had occasion to deal with this aspect
In that case there was wholly unexplained unduly long delay in the disposal of the representation by the State Government and it was held that further detention of the detenu was rendered invalid and constitutionally impermissible
The right of representation under article 225 is a valuable constitutional right and it is expected that the Government will ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied in article 225 are strictly observed
It was observed by one of us SENJ We say and we think it necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti social activities can never furnish an adequate reasons for invading the personal liberty of a citizen except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws
The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of the procedural safeguards
 It was next observed 831 It goes without saying that the constitutional right to make a representation guaranteed by article 225 must be taken to include by necessary implication the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the representation by the authority to whom it is made
The right of representation under article 225 is a valuable constitutional right and is not a mere formality
The representation made by the appellant addressed to the Chief Minister could not lie unattended to in the portals of the Secretariat while the Chief Minister was attending to other political affairs
 In view of the failure in the disposal of the representation by the State Government it must be held that the further detention of the petitioner is illegal and constitutionally impermissible
The writ petition must therefore succeed and is allowed
The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police Surat City under sub section
2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 is accordingly quashed
We direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith
NPV Petition allowed


Summary:
After levy of the property tax by the Kalyan Municipal Council  the Municipal Council  on the immovable properties of the Respondent No 1  the company  in respect of certain years the Municipal Council detected certain new construction and alterations in the existing properties of the Company and on October 3 1973 a resolution was passed by the Standing Committee increasing the rateable value of the said immovable property from 1470 to 31374
A demand notice demanding additional property tax Educational cess and Health Tax was issued thereafter to the Company
The Company challenged the notice of demand before the High Court
The High Court decided in favour of the Company holding that alteration made in the assessment list after following the procedure under section 1231 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act the said Act  did not become effective for any period prior to the commencement of the official year in which the alteration in the assessment list was made and the Municipality was not entitled to levy tax for an official year or any part thereof which was already expired
This appeal was filed in this Court against that decision of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD The ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sholapur Municipal Corporation vs Ram Chandra Ramappa Madgundi 1972 74 Bombay Law Reporter 469 upon which the judgment of the High Court impugned in this case was based applied to this case
The appellants contended that the said case before the Full Bench had been wrongly decided and the judgment under appeal based on that decision was also erroneous
this contention must be negatived in view of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corpora 833 tion of City of Hubli vs Subba Rao Hanumatharao Prayag  Ors
1976 3 SCR p 883 which approved the said decision of the Full Bench of the High Court and which is binding on the Court and clearly applicable to this case
In that judgment this Court had pointed out that once it was accepted that the process of levying the tax was complete only when the assessment list was authenticated and it was only then that the tax was levied on the rate payers the authentication must be made within the official year
The tax being a tax for the official year must be levied during the official year and since the levy of the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated it must follow that the authentication must take place in the official year
The official year is the unit of taxation as far as Municipal property taxes are concerned
836DG837A B If an assessment list could be altered at any time if the conditions set out in Section 123 of the said Act are satisfied the result would be that there would be complete uncertainty in the field of taxation of property and unwary purchasers of immovable property might be put to the difficulty of having to discharge the liabilities for property taxes for years long prior to the time when they had purchased the immovable property in order to save the property from being sold in recovery proceedings
837B C Sholapur Municipal Corporation vs Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi 1972 74 Bombay Law Reporter 469 and Municipal Corporation of City of Hubli vs Subha Rao Hanumatharao Prayag  Ors   referred to