Case: Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi Vs. Patna Municipal Corporation &amp; Anr

of the Act. If the Committee under S. 117 of the Act could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality, S. N. Sarkar would not have jurisdiction to hear the review petition, for under that section it was the function of the Committee to do so. Mr. Varma contends that after the order of supersession passed by Government all the Commissioners vacated their offices and thereafter it was impossible for the Commissioners to function as members of the Committee or to nominate or elect two other tax-payers to that Committee within the meaning of Section 117 (1) of the Act and that, therefore, the Government validly appointed the Assistant Special Officer to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee under the said section. If this construction be accepted, all the sections whereunder certain powers were conferred and certain duties were imposed on the said Commissioner would cease to be operative after the order of supersession. Only to avoid this contingency S. 386(1)(b) of the Act in express terms says that all the powers and duties which may under the provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by the Commissioners, whether at a meeting or otherwise, shall be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct. The effect of that clause is that all the powers and duties of the Commissioners conferred and imposed on them under the various sections of the Act, whether to act in a body or in committees or individually, would be exercised by such person or persons as the State Government might direct thereunder. If that be the interpretation of S. 386 (1), the person or persons appointed by the State Government thereunder would take the place of the Commissioners in the various sections of the Act. So too, in S. 117 (1) of the Act, which would run thus:[After reproducing S. 117 (1) as quoted in Para. 6 above, the judgment continues as under:]If that be the effect of S. 386 on S. 117, the Committee under S. 177 could have been constituted with one or more of the three persons nominated by the Government under S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act and two tax-payers nominated by them and a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government. This construction will give full effect to S. 117 of the Act, whereas the construction suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents and accepted by the High court would make it unworkable. It is well known rule of construction that a Court must construe a section, unless it is impossible to do so, to make it workable rather than to make it unworkable. In the words of Lord Bramwell, the words of a statute never should in interpretation be added to or subtracted from, without almost a necessity.9. By the Notification issued by the Government on November 21, 1949, if it was intended to replace the Committee by one or other of the three persons mentioned therein, it would be beyond its powers conferred under the provisions of S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act. Under the said clause, the powers and duties which may under the provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by the Commissioners could be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct. But it does not empower the government to replace persons or authorities other than Commissioners by persons nominated by it. But the said Notification may be reasonably confined to the scope of the authority of the Government. If so confined, it replaced only the two commissioners by the person or persons mentioned therein.10. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, if accepted, would lead to an anomaly. Section 117 (1) would become unworkable and the same officer who revised the assessment would sit in judgment over it.11. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the order made by S. N. Sarkar rejecting the objections filed by the appellant and enhancing the valuation of the suit holding to Rs. 8,400 and fixing the quarterly municipal taxes at Rs. 882-8-0 was without jurisdiction.12. There are also merits in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The periodical revisional assessment of the premises was made in the year 1950 after making the necessary enquiry. It was altered on January 10, 1951, under Section 107 (1) (d) of the Act on the ground that the value had increased by additions made by the owner to the premises. The impugned revaluation of the building and the assessment were made in the year 1952 under S. 107 (1) (c) of the Act, which reads:"The Commissioner may from time to time alter or amend the assessment list in any of the following ways:(c) by enhancing the valuation of, or assessment on, any holding which has been incorrectly valued or assessed by reason of fraud, mis-representation or mistake."Under this section, the burden is certainly upon the Commissioners before they could amend the valuation and the assessment already made to establish that the previous assessment was incorrectly made by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. The High Court said that not a word had been said in the evidence adduced by the parties that the rental taken into consideration by the Special Officer while making the reassessment in 1952 did not exist at the time of the periodical revisional assessment. This observation was made on the assumption that the burden was upon the assessee. Indeed, when the appellant filed a petition in the suit under O. XI of the C P. C. for the discovery of the relevant records of the three assessments and though the learned Munsif made an order directing the Municipality to do so, it failed to produce them. In the circumstances we must hold that the Municipality had not established the pre-condition for the re-assessment, namely, that the original periodical revisional assessment was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]It is not disputed that S. N. Sarkar had jurisdiction to take action under S. 107 (c) of the Act, but what is contended is that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the review petition under Section 117 (1) of the Act. If the Committee under S. 117 of the Act could have been validly constituted even after the supersession of the Municipality, S. N. Sarkar would not have jurisdiction to hear the review petition, for under that section it was the function of the Committee to do so. Mr. Varma contends that after the order of supersession passed by Government all the Commissioners vacated their offices and thereafter it was impossible for the Commissioners to function as members of the Committee or to nominate or elect two other tax-payers to that Committee within the meaning of Section 117 (1) of the Act and that, therefore, the Government validly appointed the Assistant Special Officer to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee under the said section. If this construction be accepted, all the sections whereunder certain powers were conferred and certain duties were imposed on the said Commissioner would cease to be operative after the order of supersession. Only to avoid this contingency S. 386(1)(b) of the Act in express terms says that all the powers and duties which may under the provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by the Commissioners, whether at a meeting or otherwise, shall be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct. The effect of that clause is that all the powers and duties of the Commissioners conferred and imposed on them under the various sections of the Act, whether to act in a body or in committees or individually, would be exercised by such person or persons as the State Government might direct thereunder. If that be the interpretation of S. 386 (1), the person or persons appointed by the State Government thereunder would take the place of the Commissioners in the various sections of thethat be the effect of S. 386 on S. 117, the Committee under S. 177 could have been constituted with one or more of the three persons nominated by the Government under S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act and two tax-payers nominated by them and a Deputy Magistrate nominated by the Government. This construction will give full effect to S. 117 of the Act, whereas the construction suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents and accepted by the High court would make it unworkable. It is well known rule of construction that a Court must construe a section, unless it is impossible to do so, to make it workable rather than to make it unworkable. In the words of Lord Bramwell, the words of a statute never should in interpretation be added to or subtracted from, without almost a necessity.By the Notification issued by the Government on November 21, 1949, if it was intended to replace the Committee by one or other of the three persons mentioned therein, it would be beyond its powers conferred under the provisions of S. 386 (1) (b) of the Act. Under the said clause, the powers and duties which may under the provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by the Commissioners could be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct. But it does not empower the government to replace persons or authorities other than Commissioners by persons nominated by it. But the said Notification may be reasonably confined to the scope of the authority of the Government. If so confined, it replaced only the two commissioners by the person or persons mentioned therein.For the foregoing reasons we hold that the order made by S. N. Sarkar rejecting the objections filed by the appellant and enhancing the valuation of the suit holding to Rs. 8,400 and fixing the quarterly municipal taxes at Rs. 882-8-0 was without jurisdiction.12. There are also merits in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The periodical revisional assessment of the premises was made in the year 1950 after making the necessary enquiry. It was altered on January 10, 1951, under Section 107 (1) (d) of the Act on the ground that the value had increased by additions made by the owner to the premises. The impugned revaluation of the building and the assessment were made in the year 1952 under S. 107 (1) (c) of the Act, whichCommissioner may from time to time alter or amend the assessment list in any of the following ways:(c) by enhancing the valuation of, or assessment on, any holding which has been incorrectly valued or assessed by reason of fraud, mis-representation orthis section, the burden is certainly upon the Commissioners before they could amend the valuation and the assessment already made to establish that the previous assessment was incorrectly made by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. The High Court said that not a word had been said in the evidence adduced by the parties that the rental taken into consideration by the Special Officer while making the reassessment in 1952 did not exist at the time of the periodical revisional assessment. This observation was made on the assumption that the burden was upon the assessee. Indeed, when the appellant filed a petition in the suit under O. XI of the C P. C. for the discovery of the relevant records of the three assessments and though the learned Munsif made an order directing the Municipality to do so, it failed to produce them. In the circumstances we must hold that the Municipality had not established the pre-condition for the re-assessment, namely, that the original periodical revisional assessment was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The effect of the relevant provisions in the contest of the facts of the case may be stated thus: Where an order superseding a municipality has been passed by the Government, all the Commissioners of the Municipality shall vacate their offices and their power and duties, whether at a meeting or otherwise, shall be exercised and performed by such person or person as the State Government may direct. The State Government accordingly issued two Notifications where under S. N. Sarkar, Assistant Special Officer of the Patna City Municipality, was appointed to exercise and perform the powers and duties under S. 107 of the Act, among others, and each one of the three persons mentioned in the Notification, dated November 21, 1949, to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee under S. 117 of the Act. Pursuant to the said Notifications, S. N. Sarkar, functioning in the place of the Commissioners, enhanced the valuation of the holding of the appellant and the assessment thereof under S. 107 (c) of the Act, and rejected the review petition under S. 117 (1) of the Act.e argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, if accepted, would lead to an anomaly. Section 117 (1) would become unworkable and the same officer who revised the assessment would sit in judgment over it.