VIL Appeal No 3717 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1291986 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No 428 of 1986
Ms Lira Goswami and DN Mishra for the Appellant
Shankar Ghosh SK Hom Choudhary and SK Nandy for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 510 RAY J
The respondent Rev Fr
Paul Petta was appointed as Principal of St Anthony s  College by Salesian Provincial on April 16 1982 and on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the College the Director of Public Instruction Meghalaya Shillong accorded approval to his appointment with effect from 1st May 1982
St Anthony s College was established by Salesian Congregation a Catholic religious Society of imparting general education
It is a religious minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and it is receiving Government grants in aid since the scheme of deficit grant in aid colleges was intoduce by the government of Assam in 1959
After creation of Meghalaya it has been grants in aid under the same system as adopted by th Government of Meghalaya
By Memo No EDN
7574280 dated 4th November 1976 the Government of Meghalaya Education Department conveyed to the Director of Public Instucion the sanction of the Government of Meghalaya to the implementation of the Instruction
scales of pay as indicated thereunder to all the deficit college teachers including the Principals Professors in the State with effect from 1st April 1975
By Memo No EDN 757451 dated December 7 1979 the Government of Meghalaya laid down the procedure for appointment of Principals Vice Principals and Lectuers and other staff in Religious Minority Colleges in the State with refernce to Article 30 of the Constitution
Paragraph 1 which is relevant is quoted below In the matter of appointment of Principals and Vice Principals in the colleges belonging to th religious minorities the governing Body of the College concerned shall select a Principal and Vice Principal from a panel of names submitted by th sponsoring Church Organisation concerned subjects to th condition that the educational qualifications of the persons selected shall be in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Government s letter No EDN7574280 dated 41176
Other conditions in respect of age of super annuation etc
shall be as prescribed by the State Government from time to time
 The respondent after his appointment had been working as Principal of the College
While working as such differences arose between him and the church authorities more particularly the appellant Nos 23 and 4 ie the President and the members of the Government Body of the College regarding certain matters relating to the management of the college
PG NO 511 On December 14 1985 Fr
John Kalapura SDB the Appellant No 2 President Governing Body of St Anthony s College and Salesian Provincial sent a letter to the respondent intimating him of his transfer from the power of Principal of the College
The letter states  After due consultation with the Provincial Council I am transferring you from the post of Principal of St Anthony s College Shillong and am appointing Rev Fr J Kenny as Acting Principal of the same college with effect from 2 f 12 85
Kindly hand over the charge to Rev Fr J Kenny by 21st Dec 1985
 On receiving the said letter the respondent on that very day sent a letter to the appellant No 2 stating that he had no authority to appoint or dismiss or transfer the Principal of the College as the Principal and Vice Principal in the College belonging to the minorities are to be selected by the Governing Body and to be approved by the Director of Public Institution in accordance with Government instructions mentioned in its letter dated December 7 1979
The respondent sent a letter to the Director of Public Instruction in short DPl intimating that he had been removed from the Principalship of St Anthony s College by the appellant No 2 the Salesian Provincial of Cauhati Province and Rev Fr
Kenny had been appointed as the Acting Principal and requested him to intimate if the Government has given any power to Sponsoring Authority for St Anthony s College in contravention of the Memo dated December 7 1976
The DPI has informed the respondent by his letter dated 23rd December L985 that this office is not aware of any such power given to the Church Authority concerned
The Salesian Provincial by its letter dated March 7 1986 proposed the name of Fr Stiphen Mavely as Principal of the said College
The Governing Body at its meeting held on 17th March 1986 resolved that Fr
Stephen Mavely be appointed Principal cum Secretary of St Anthony s College with effect from March 10 1986
The said appointment was approved by DPl Meghalaya with effect from 10th March 1986
The respondent filed a suit being TS No l T of L986 in the Court of the Assistant District Commissioner with a prayer for temporary injunction
An interim order of maintaining status quo was obtained
But as in the meantime the office of the Principal was and taken possession of the suit was withdrawn and a writ petition being Civil Rule No PG NO 512 428 of 1986 was filed challenging that Salesian Provincial has no power to transfer the respondent viz the Principal of the College to Don Bosco Technical School Maligaon Gauhati
The respondent was appointed as Principal of the said College by the Governing Body of the College with the approval of DPI and so the Governing Body with the approval of DPI can transfer him under the statutory rules
It was also contended that the respondent acquired a satutory right to hold the post of Principal till his attaining the age of super annuation
The purported order of transfer is illegal and without jurisdiction It has also been contended that the purported order of transfer tantamounts to removal of the respondent from the post of Principal and the said order being issued without recording any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause to him is arbitrary illegal and mala fide
The purported order of transfer is thus violative of principles of natural justice and as such it is liable to be quashed
An affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of appellant Nos 2 3 and 4 denying that the administration and management of the said college including the appointment discipline etc
are governed by the Assam Aided College Management Rules
1965 Assam Aided College Employees  Rules 1960 for appointment of Principals and Vice Principals and conditions of grants in aid aided colleges in 1956
It has been stated that St Anthony s College is a minority institution and the Salesians Provincial is the only Competent Authority to make any appointment to the rank of Principal in the said College and no advertisement before making any appointment is necessary
This relaxation of restriction in regard to Minority College availing of deficit grants in aid has been made by Memo dated December 7 1979
The petitioner is a member of the Salesian of Don Bosco and his appointment to the said post of Principal could never have been permanent
As a priest he is transferable from time to time different institutions of the Society
The Constitution of the Salesians of Don Bosco provides that such transfer is binding on the petitioner as a priest and a member of the Salesian Don Bosco
The transfer of the petitioner and other priests are matters of normal routine as members of Salesian Society
It has also been stated that any money drawn by a priest has to be given to the order of Salesian of Don bosco and no priest maintains any private fund
It is the responsibility of the Salesian Society to look after the needs and requirements of any member of the community and is responsible for the upkeep of such members
The petitioner has taken a vow of obedience when he was ordained as a priest and was admitted as a member of Don bosco
The petition is liable to be dismissed as no statutory right of the petitioner has been violated
PG NO 513 After hearing the learned counsels for the parties as well as considering the facts and circumstances the High Court held that the Governing Body of the College was not a Statutory Body
The Court further held that To our mind there is violation of the principles of natural justice in dislodging the petitioner from his post of Principal without hearing him The High Court further held that So long as the members of the Salesian Body obeyed the rules and regulation of the Body accepted transfers in good spirit this Court would have nothing to do
But if the petitioner having been appointed as Principal feels aggrieved that his transfer is not in accordance with the rules of the body and comes to the Court this Court has to look and listen to him
By appointing the petitioner as Principal of the College the organisation has exposed the petitioner to the judicial gaze of the Court and if the petitioner makes grievances it is for the Court to redress it  
The petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body and that was subject to the approval of the DPI There is no reason as to why his removal from the post of the Principal should not have been made by the Governing Body and subject to the approval of the DPl
However the College Governing Body has got no control over the School whereto the petitioner has been transferred
 The High Court therefore made the rule absolute to the extent indicated in the directions quoted below We accordingly keep the impugned order in abeyance forthwith and direct the Governing Body of the College to give the petitioner an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be transferred as stated in the impugned transfer order dated 1412 1985 Annexure 10 and after hearing the petitioner on the cause shown shall decide the matter of transfer within one month from receipt of this order and act according to the decision so taken and in PG NO 514 conformity with the Government instructions Annexure 8
If the impugned order is revoked the petitioner shall automatically be reinstated in his post of principal of the College and shall be given all the emoluments and benefits thereof
The Respondent No 11 shall correspondingly cease to be Principal of the College but shall not be disentitled to the pay and allowances for the services already rendered by him to the College prior to this date
In case the Governing Body decides to give effect to the impugned transfer order it shall revive and the petitioner shall be free to pursue his remedies under the law
In the interest of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity we direct the Governing Body to make available to the petitioner all the records which he may need for the purpose of his defence the petitioner shall not however function as Principal during the period of one month pending decision
The decision shall be taken within a month from today
 Aggrieved by the said order made in Civil Rule No 428 of 1986 a special leave petition has been filed by the Governing Body and some of the members of the Governing Body of the College
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties special leave was granted
The St Anthony s College is admittedly a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution and as such the Salesian Don Bosco Society is competent to administer the said college
This College is getting deficit grants in aid from the Government of Meghalaya and the instructions contained in Memo No EDN
7574S1 issued by the Government of Meghalaya on 7th December 1979 laying down the procedure of appointment of Principal Vice Principal Lecturers and other staff in religious minority colleges in the State will apply to this Institution
The respondent who was a lecturer of St Anthony s College was sponsored by Salesian Provincial the appellant No 2 for appointment of Principal of the College and the Governing Body of the College recommended the same to the Director of Public Instruction Meghalaya for approval as required under the above instructions
The DPI duly approved the appointment of the respondent Rev Fr Paul Petta as Principal of the College with effect from May 1 1982
The appellant worked as Principal of St Anthony s College since the date of his appointment till the impugned order of transfer made by the appellant No 2 Rev Fr John Kalapura as Salesian Provincial from the post of Principal of the said College to the post of Teacher Don Bosco Technical School Maligaon Gauhati on December 21 PG NO 515 1985 without asking him to show cause against the order of transfer and without giving him any opportunity of hearing
It has been urged that the respondent being ordained as a priest of the society has taken vow of servie to any post where he will be asked by the Society to work
As a priest he was sponsored by the Church Authority for appointment as Principal and the Governing Body of the College also recommended his appointment as made by Salesian Provincial for approval
The petitioner cannot have any grievance against the order of transfer as he has no statutory right to remain as Principal of the College
It has also been contended by refering to certain Articles of Constitution of the Society of St Francis de Sales that the respondent being ordained as priest of the Society took the vow of service and the Salesian Provincial can transfer him to serve in any of institutions of the Society as his service is transferable
It has also been submitted that as a priest the respondent cannot keep any money with him and whatever salary he gets will have to be given to the Society which will look after him and meet his needs
The respondent question the order of transfer
The respondent so long as he to the order of transfer and complies with it the court has nothing to do
But if he does not comply with it and questions it before the Court the Court will have to consider his grievances and to decide if the impugned order of transfer is legal and valid
The respondent was appointed as Principal of St Anthony s College by the Governing Body of the College and the same was duly approved by the Director of Public Instruction Meghalaya in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Government s letter dated December 7 1979
The impugned order of transfer purports to transfer the respondent from the post of Principal of the College to the post Teacher in the Don Bosco Technical School at Maligaon within the State of Gauhati over which the Governing Body of St Anthony College has no control
This order of transfer has prejudicially affected the status of the respondent as Principal of St Anthony s College
The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Salesian Provincial the appellant No 2 is competent to transfer the petitioner who has been appointed as Principal of the College by the Governing Body of the College and approved by the DPI as per Government instructions applicable to minority college
There is no dispute that the respondent is a member of Salesian Don Bosco Society as a priest
It is also not in dispute that as a priest of the society h was sponsored by the Church Authorities for the post of Principal of th College and the Governing Body of the College recommended to the DPI for approval of his appointment as Principal of the College
In such PG NO 516 circumstances it is required to be considered whether the Salesian Provincial has power to transfer him from the post of Principal of the College to the post of Teacher in a Technical School of the Society
It is apparent from the aforesaid Government instructions that the Principal whose appointment has been duly approved by the DPI can work as Principal in the minority college till he attains the age of super annuation as determined by the Government
The impugned order of transfer in substance amounts to removal of the respondent from the post of Principal of the College
It has been held by the High Court that the respondent has been condemned unheard as he was not given any opportunity to show cause for the purported order of transfer whih seriously prejudiced him
The principles of natural justice and fair play mandate that in administrative actions the audi alterum partem rule is applicable and the person affected by the order to be given an opportunity of hearing against the purported order apart from the question whether the Assam Aided College Management Rules l965 and Assam Aided College Employees  Rules
1965 are applicable to minority institutions
We do not consider it necessary for the purposes of this appeal to make any observations on the question whether the Assam Aided College Management Rules 1965 and Assam Aided College Employees  Rules 1960 are applicable to minority institutions or to consider the question whether the rules concerning the terms and conditions of appointment as well as prescribing qualification for appointment the post of lecturers and principals as well as prescribing condition for service are regulatory in nature and they do not contravene the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution to the minority institutions at has been observed in the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs Union of India  Ors 1987 I SCR 238
It has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No 2 Salesian Provincial is the appointing authority of the respondent and as such he has the right to make the impugned order of transfer though there is nc express provision conferring such power
The case of Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar vs Kutoor Vengayil Valia Madhavi Amma and Ors AIR 1950 Federal Court 140 has been cited at the bar for the proposition that the power to terminate flows naturally and as a necessary sequence from the power to create
This proposition is a well established proposition but the question is whether the Salesian Provincial is the appointing authority of the respondent or the Governing 8body of the said College appointed the respondent and recommended his appointment for approval to the DPI As stated earlier DPI pursuant to the recommendation of the Governing Body approved the appointment of the respondent as PG NO 517 Principal of the said College
So this question has to be gone into and determined by the Governing Body as has been directed by the order of the High Court
It has been contended that the impugned order of transfer has seriously affected the status of the respondent as Principal of the College and this has been made by the appellant No 2 Salesian Provincial without giving him any opportunity of hearing
Now in so far as the Respondent is transferred in his capacity as priest from one division of the religious order to another the matter pertains to the internal management of the religious order and it is not justiciable
However in so far as the order of transfer has been made by the Governing Body of the St Anthony s College transferring the respondent from the post of Principal of the College to the post of Teacher of Don Bosco Technical School which is in another State the respondent can complain against it
Since the respondent has not been given any opportunity of hearing against the purported order of transfer outside the State which seriously affected his status the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has directed the Governing Body of the College to give the respondent an opportunity to show cause against the impugned order of transfer dated 14
1985 and to give him a hearing and decide the transfer matter in accordance with law
The judgment and order passed by the High Court in the circumstances of the case cannot be faulted
We therefore uphold the order passed by the High Court and the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Ks
5000
SL Appeal dismissed


Summary:
These Civil appeals and special leave petitions centred round one point namely the validity of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1958 as amended by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act XIV of 1987 and Section 6 of the said Act as amended by Maharashtra Act XXXIII of 1987 and the Maharashtra Act IX of 1988
Section 3 of the said Act XIV of 1987 added sub section IC to provide for the levy of one time tax at 15 times the annual rate on all motor cycles in the State
The said provisions further provided that in the case of motor cycles owned by a company or other commercial organisation the one time tax was to be levied at thrice the rate
Section 6 of the said Act XIV of 1987 added sub section 6 to section 9 enabling a registered owner of a motor cycle or tricycle to obtain refund of Lone_time tax under certain conditions
Petitions were filed in the High Court by the respondents in the appeals and petitioners in the special leave petitions challenging the amended provisions of the principal Act
The High Court held that i the levy of the one time tax was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and also beyond Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and ii the provision for imposition of levy at thrice the rates on the vehicles owned by a firm or company were neither discriminatory nor arbitrary
The High Court struck down Act XIV of 1987
The appeals by leave were filed by the State and the special leave petitions were fixed by the petitioners in this Court against the decision of the High Court
In the meanwhile the Maharashtra Legislature enacted Maharashtra Act XXXIII of 1987 which deleted Section 34 of the principal Act as amended by the PG NO 482 PG NO 483 Maharashtra Act XIV of 1987 whereby the existing provisions of refund for temporary non user were made inapplicable in cases of motor cycles and tricycles restricting the right of refund to Section 96 in the contingencies mentioned therein
It also introduced sub section 7 to section 9 conferring the right of refund in respect of motor cycles and tricycles in accordance with the rates specified in the Fifth Schedule
But the said schedule did not prescribe a separate rate of refund for the company owned vehicles
Therefore the refund in respect of the company owned vehicles was the same as that payable to individual owned vehicles even though the tax paid on former class of vehicles was three times
Soon thereafter the Maharashtra Legislature enacted Act IX of 1988 whereby the only relevant change for the present purpose was that the rate of refund was enhanced to three times in respect of the company owned vehicles
Before this Court the appellant State submitted that the amendments enacted by the Maharashtra Acts XXXllI of 1987 and IX of 1988 had brought the principal Act as amended by the Maharashtra Act XIV of 1987 within the constitutional requirements of making one time tax s regulatory and compensatory tax and that it was not necessary to decide if the Act as it stood when it was challenged before the High Court was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature
The respondents in the appeals and the petitioners in the special leave petitions urged that as even after the amendment no refund was available in respect of a vehicle which had been registered for more than 13 years the effect of that was that no refund al all was available in respect
of the tax paid for a vehicle for the 14th and 15th years
The impugned levy of tax ceased to be compensatory or regulatory and was void under Entry 57 of List II and was violative of Article 301 of the Constitution
Disposing of the appeals and dismissing the special leave petitions the Court
HELD The tax imposed on the motor vehicles or a class of motor cycles would not be valid unless it is compensatory or regulatory or does not have any nexus with the vehicles using the roads
In such a case
the levy would be Section of the said Act XIV of 1987 added sub section IC to provide for the levy of one time tax at 15 times the annual rate on all motor cycles in the State
The said provisions further provided that in the case of motor cycles owned by a company or other commercial organisation the one time tax was to be levied at thrice the rate
The fact that the act as at present did not provide for refund in the 14th and 15th years did no make the law outside the competence of the State Legislature
he concept PG NO 484 of regulatory and compensatory tax does no imply mathematical precision of quid pro quo
489E After the amendment the Act came with in the constitutional requirements of making he one time tax a regulatory and compensatory tax
It was true that the Act has no provided for refund in the 14h and 15h years but that does no make he law out sides the competence of the State Legislature
It is no mathematical precision that is necessary nor can it be
there is in the provisions as amended as amended a discernible and an identifiable object behind the levy and a nexus between the subject and the object of the levy 491E F Two principles have to be emphasised firstly that the tax must be regulatory and compenstaory and secondly there must be no discrimination
A taxation law cannot claim immunity from the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution but in view of the intrinsic complexity of fiscal adjustments of diverse elements a considerable wide discretion and latitude in the matter of classification for taxation purpose is permissible
The life of Motor cycles and tricycles normally exceeds 25 years
Non refund for certain period is no conclusive of the matter
Even if mathematical provision is no possible it cannot be said that it is wholly unmathematical
The collection of ax for a period of 15 ears at one point of time is a convenient method enabling the owner o use he vehicle for more than 25 years without having to pay the tax periodically and pay the enhanced tax at may be levied during the 25 years of life of the vehicle
Regulatory and compensatory tax can be levied to the extent e State is required to pay for rendering the services
491G492A C The Act as at present is not violative of Article 145 of the Constitution
The fact that the company owned vehicles are taxed that three times the rate payable by individuals does not make the legislation violatvie of Article 14
Histrocially the company owned vehicles are always been taxed at a rate higher that the individually owned vehicles
he legislature has he power to distribute tax burden in a flexible manner and the Court would no interfere with the same
It could not be said that there was differentiation without any basis and as such there was discrimination
492E H In view of the principles applicable to the taxation laws and various other factors the Maharashtra Act as amended from time to time does not suffer from any vice of being not regulatory or compensatory taxation nor from the vice of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the challenge to the provisions of the Act as amended PG NO 485 after the judgment of the High Court could not be maintained
494G 495A After the amendments afore mentioned the Act does no suffer from the vice mentioned in the judgment of the High Court 
The appeals were allowed thus and the challenge made in the special leave petitions was dismissed
495 The taxes would be realised in accordance with the Act and the necessary adjustments would be made accordingly
495C Bolani Ors
Ltd vs State of Orissa
  GK Krishnan vs The State of Tamil Nadu  Anr 1975 2 SCR 715 Malwa Bus Service P Ld
vs State of Punjab and Ors
   International ouris Corporation vs State of Haryana  Ors   Income tax Officer shillong  Anr
vs N Takim Roy Rymbai etc  Mrs Meenakshi  Ors
vs State of Karnataka  Ors AIR 1983 SC 1283 Anant Mills Co Ltd vs State of Gujarat and Ors 1975 3 SCR 220 Khandige Sham Bhat  Ors
vs The Agricultural Income tax Officer  and State of Karnataka vs K Gopalakrishna Shenoy and Another   refered to