Case: Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd Vs. Municlpal Board, Rampur

of S. 131 (3). Further the manner of publication was in substantial compliance with S. 94 (3). Therefore as there was substantial compliance with the provisions of S. 94 (3), S. 135 (3) would in our opinion come to the help of the respondent and it must be held that all necessary steps had been taken.14. It is however contended on behalf of the respondent that S. 135 (3) goes further and means that where it applies, the tax must be held to be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even though none of the procedural provisions may have been complied with at all. It is enough to say that the question in this form does not arise before us directly for we have held that there was publication in compliance with S. 131 (3) though the manner was not strictly in accordance with S. 94 (3). We do not think it necessary in the present case to decide what would happen if there was no compliance at all with the various procedural provisions including S. 131 (3) by a Board before imposing a tax and the evidence consisted only of a notification under S.135 (2). It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in a number of cases that if there is no compliance with the procedural provisions in S. 131 to S. 134, the mere notification under S. 135 (2) would not be sufficient to impose a tax and S. 135 (3) would not save such tax: see Azimulla v. Suraj Kumar Singh, AIR 1957 All 307 and Municipal Board Hapur, District Meerut v. Raghvendra Kripal, 1960 All LJ 185. These are cases in which certain procedural provisions were not complied with at all and the High Court held that S. 135 (3) would not save the tax in such cases. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion on this question for it does not arise in the present case. We may however point out that the decision in the Berar Swadeshi Vanaspathis case, (1962) 1 SCR 596 : (AIR 1962 SC 420 ) is not a case where there was no compliance whatsoever with procedural provisions; all that had happened in that case was that the objections had been taken into consideration by the Board though they were rejected for reasons which were considered by the appellant in that case to be not sufficient. In that case therefore there was compliance with the provisions of the Act and all that we need say is that that case is no authority for the proposition that even if there is no compliance whatsoever with a mandatory provision of a statute relating to procedure for the imposition of a tax, a provision like S. 135 (3) of the Act or S. 67 (8) of the C. P. and Berar Municipal Act would necessarily save such imposition. If S: 135 3. means that where there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act that would be conclusive proof that they have been complied with there can be no valid objection to such a provision. But if the section is interpreted to mean, as is urged for the respondent, that even it there is no compliance whatever with any mandatory provision relating to imposition of tax andthe only thing proved is that a notification under S. 135 (2) has been made, the tax would still be good, the question may arise whether S. 135 (3) itself is a valid provision. For present purposes however it is unnecessary to decide that question. In the present case the mandatory part of S. 131 (3) has been complied with and its directory part has been substantially complied with and to S. 135 (3) will apply and the objection that the tax is not validly imposed must fail.15. This brings us to the second point raised before us. So far as that is concerned, it is enough to say that it is mainly a question of fact whether the buildings or any of them belonging to the appellant are within 600 feet of the standpipe. The restriction imposed in cl. (a) of S. 129 is that water-tax can be levied on a building where any part of it is within a radius fixed by rules which in the present case is 600 feet from the nearest standpipe or water-work whereat water is made available by the Board to the public. What is contended on behalf of the appellant is that these words mean that there should be a standpipe or water-work from which water is made available to the public by the respondent and that it is not enough if underground pipes carrying water are passing within 600 fect. It seems to us that this contention of the appellant is correct. The restriction in S. 129 (a) is that no water tax can be levied on a building which is more than a certain distance fixed by the rules from a standpipe or other water-work from which water is made available to the public. The restriction that water should be made available to the public within the specified distance does not mean that it prpes carrying water pass underground that would be enough. What is required is that water should be made available to the public from the nearest standpipe or other water work and that requires that there must be something above the ground from which the public can draw water. But even so, the question is one of fact and the High Court has pointed out that there was dispute on this question of fact and there was no sufficient material before it to enable it to come to a definite finding whether all the buildings of the appellant were beyond the radius of 600 feet from the nearest standpipe. In this state of the evidence the question must be left open and the appellant can pursue such remedies as he may be advised to take.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are therefore of opinion that this part of S. 131 (3) is mandatory and it is necessary to comply with it strictly before any tax can be imposed. We shall consider the interpretation of S. 135 (3) later; but we have no doubt that in the present case, in spite of S. 135 (3), the legislature tended that there must be publication as provided in what we have called the first part of S. 131 (3). We therefore hold that this part of S. 131 (3) is mandatory considering its language, the purpose for which it has been enacted, the setting in which it appears and the intention of the legislature which obviously is that no tax should be imposed without hearing tax-payers. Lastly we see no serious general inconvenience or injustice to any one if this part of the provision is held to be mandatory; on the other hand it will be unjust to taxpayers if this part of the provision is held to be directory, inasmuch as the disregard of it would deprive their of the opportunity to make objections to the proposals, and the draft rules. We therefore hold that this part of S. 131 (3) isprinciple that case in our opinion applies to the manner of publication provided in S. 94 (3) in the present case. As we have said already the essence of S. 131 (3) is that there should be publication of the proposals and draft rules so that the tax-payers have an opportunity of objecting to them, and that is provided in what we have called the first part of S. 131 (3); that is mandatory. But the manner of publication provided by S. 9-1 (3) which we have called the second part of S. 131 (3), appears to be directory and so long as it is substantially complied with that would be enough for the purpose of providing the tax-payers a reasonable opportunity of making their objections. We are therefore of opinion that the manner of publication provided in S. 131(3) ismust however point out that if S. 94 (3) is interpreted literally all that it requires is that the publication must be in a local paper and that local paper must be published in Hindi, though the actual publication of the resolution may not be in Hindi. That does not seem to us to be the real meaning of S. 94 (3) and what it substantially requires is that the publication should be in Hindi in a local paper, and if that is done that would be compliance with S. 94 (3). Now what has happened in this case is that the publication has been made in a local paper which on the evidence seems to have good circulation in Rampur and the actual resolution has been published in Hindi, though the paper itself is published in Urdu. It seems to us therefore that there is substantial compliance with the provisions of S. 94(3) in this case, even though there is a technical defect inasmuch as the local paper in which the publication has been made is published in Urdu and not in Hindi. But what has happened in this case is in our opinion substantial compliance with S. 94(3) and as we have held that provision to be directory it must be held that S. 131 (3) has been complied with.The present case is in our opinion similar to that case. Here also the publication was made, as we have already pointed out in compliance with what we have called the first part of S. 131 (3). Further the manner of publication was in substantial compliance with S. 94 (3). Therefore as there was substantial compliance with the provisions of S. 94 (3), S. 135 (3) would in our opinion come to the help of the respondent and it must be held that all necessary steps had beenfar as that is concerned, it is enough to say that it is mainly a question of fact whether the buildings or any of them belonging to the appellant are within 600 feet of the standpipe. The restriction imposed in cl. (a) of S. 129 is that water-tax can be levied on a building where any part of it is within a radius fixed by rules which in the present case is 600 feet from the nearest standpipe or water-work whereat water is made available by the Board to the public. What is contended on behalf of the appellant is that these words mean that there should be a standpipe or water-work from which water is made available to the public by the respondent and that it is not enough if underground pipes carrying water are passing within 600 fect. It seems to us that this contention of the appellant is correct. The restriction in S. 129 (a) is that no water tax can be levied on a building which is more than a certain distance fixed by the rules from a standpipe or other water-work from which water is made available to the public. The restriction that water should be made available to the public within the specified distance does not mean that it prpes carrying water pass underground that would be enough. What is required is that water should be made available to the public from the nearest standpipe or other water work and that requires that there must be something above the ground from which the public can draw water. But even so, the question is one of fact and the High Court has pointed out that there was dispute on this question of fact and there was no sufficient material before it to enable it to come to a definite finding whether all the buildings of the appellant were beyond the radius of 600 feet from the nearest standpipe. In this state of the evidence the question must be left open and the appellant can pursue such remedies as he may be advised to take.