Case: Rajnarain Singh  Vs.  The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna, And Another

The appellant is the Secretary of the Rate Payers Association at Patna. He and the other members of his Association reside in an area which was originally outside the municipal limits of Patna and was not liable to municipal and cognate taxation. On 18th April, 1951, this area was brought within municipal limits and was subjected to municipal taxation. This was accomplished by a notification of that date. By reason of this the appellant and the others whom he represents were called upon to pay taxes for the period 1st April, 1951, to 31st March, 1952. The notifications were issued under sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Patna Administration Act of 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915). The appellant claims that the notifications are delegated legislation and so are bad and prays that sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Act which permitted this delegation be condemned as ultraorder to appreciate the points raised it will be necessary to go back to the year 1911 when the Province Bihar and Orissa was formed. It will also be necessary to bear in mind that we have to deal with three separate sections in the area which is now called Patna. In order to avoid confusion we will call them Patna City, Patna Administration and Patna Village respectively. It must be understood that this is a purely arbitrary nomenclature adopted by us for the purposes of this judgment and that they are neither so called nor so recognised anywhere else. Their bound-aries have not been static but it will be necessary to keep them notionally distinct.When the new Province was formed in 1911 the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 applied to the whole of it. At that time one of the three portions of Patna with which we are concerned (namely, the portion we have called Patna City) was under a Municipality (the Patna City Municipality) created under the Bengal Act. This Municipality continued to function in the Patna City area after the creation of the new Province. The other two sections were not born as distinct entities till later and the areas which they now cover were not under any municipal or cognatenew Province required a new capital and Patna was chosen for the purpose. Quite naturally the City expanded and, following the general pattern in India, a new area grew up (distinct from the old City) which housed the headquarters of the new Government. Before long, it was thought expedient to bring this area under municipal jurisdiction and give it a municipality of its own rather than place it under the old city municipality. Accordingly, the Legislature of the new State passed the Patna Administration Act of 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915) to enable this to be done. This Act came into force on 5th January,The petitioner impugns sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Act and the notifications made under it on the ground that they permit delegated legislation which has hurt him an wrongly rendered him liable to municipal taxation.Broadly speaking, the Act empowered the Local Government to create a new municipality (later called the Patna Administration Committee) for this new area which, in our arbitrary classification, we have called Patna Administration. The Act called this new area "Patna" and defined its boundaries in the schedule to the Act. This area did not include either the section which we have called Patna City or the one we have dubbed Patna Village.Now the Legislature of this new State did not draw up a new Municipal Act nor did it apply the existing Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, which was at that time in force in the Province, to this new area which the Act of 1915 called "Patna" and which we have called Patna Administration Instead, by section 3(1)(f) it empowered the Local Governmentto Patna the provisions of any section of the said Act" (the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884) "subject to such restrictions and modifications as the Local Government may thinkis a part of the impugned portion. Section 5, which is also impugned runsLocal Government may at any time cancel or modify any order under section6(b) is also relevant, though it is not challenged. It says, omitting unnecessary words, thatLocal Government may........................................................(b)................ include within Patna any local area in the vicinity of the same and defined in therefer to this here because the area we have called Patna Village was later brought under the jurisdiction of a new municipality called the Patna Administration Committee by action taken under this section.Armed with the powers which this Act conferred, the Local Government created the new Municipality and called it the Patna Administration Committee and, by a series of notifications with which we are not concerned, extended certain sections of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 to the area which we have called Patna Administration.The result of all this was that up to 1922 there was in existence the Patna City Municipality with jurisdiction over the area we have called Patna City; the whole of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 applied there. Side by side was the new municipality called the Patna Administration Committee holding sway over the new area which we have called Patna Administration. The Bengal Municipal Act did not apply to this area of its own force; only certain sections which the Local Government had picked out under powers conferred by the Patna Administration Act of 1915 were applied there. The third area, which we have called Patna Village, and which is the area which really concerns us, was free from municipal control.In 1922 the Provincial Legislature enacted the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922 (Bihar and Orissa Act VII of 1922). It repealed the whole of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 and substituted the new Act of 1922 for it. This only affected the Patna City area and did not affect the Patna Administration area because the Bengal Act was never applied to that area as such. The portions of it which were picked out to have force there were applied by reason of the Patna Administration Act, 1915, and that constituted, in truth and in fact, independent legislation. The result was that the new Act of 1922 came into effect in the Patna City area and the sections of the Bengal Act which were applied by reason of the Patna Administration Act continued in force in the Patna Administration area. The area which we have called Patna Village was stillthe new Province preferred its own legislation to that of Bengal. But despite the passing of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act in 1922, the Local Government, acting under section 3(1)(f) of the Patna Administration Act, 1915, could only extend sections of the Bengal Act to the Patna Administration area and not sections of its own Act. This was because of section 3(1)(a) whose provisions we need not examine. To set this right the Bihar and Orissa Legislature passed an amending Act in 1928 (Bihar and Orissa Act IV of 1928) called the Patna Administration (Amendment) Act ofBut that only provided for the future. So far as the present and the past were concerned, section 4 of the amending Act providedsection of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, extended to Patna under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the saidt is, the Patna Administration Act, 1915)be deemed to continue to extend to Patna until the extension of such section to Patna is expressly cancelled byyears later, the Governor cancelled all previous notifications extending sections of the Bengal Act of 1884, and the Bihar an Orissa Act of 1922, to the Patna Administration area. In their places he picked out certain sections of the Bihar and Orissa Act of 1922, modified others, and extended the lot so selected and modified to the Patna Administration area. This was done by Notification No. 4594 L.S.G. dated 25th April,It gave a sort of fresh Municipal Code to this area. There were, however, significant differences between this and the Act of 1922; for example, sections 4, 5, 6, 84 and 104 of the Act of 1922 were omitted altogether.Nothing further happened tillIn the meanwhile, the Constitution of India came into force on 26th January, 1950. We refer to this because before the Constitution the Local Government was empowered to act under section 3(1)(f) and section 6(b) of the Patna Administration Act, 1915. After the Constitution these powers were transferred to the Governor of Bihar.During this interval Patna was expanding and the area which we have called Patna Village, originally just a village area, began to be built upon. It a adjoined the Patna Administration area; only a road separated the two. It was therefore felt that this should also be brought under municipal control. But instead of creating a third municipality the authorities thought it best to place it under the jurisdiction of the Patna Administration Committee. Here again, instead of legislating direct they fell back on the Patna Administration Act, 1915, as amended inOn 18th April, 1951, a notification was published in the Gazette by order of the Governor of Bihar. It is Notification No. MVP-45/50-3645 L.S.G. dated 11th April,It runs as followsexercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 6 of the Patna Administration Act, 1915, (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to declare that the area defined below is included withinarea referred to is the third of the areas we are considering, namely the one we have called Patna Village. The effect of this was to bring Patna Village under the municipal control of the Patna Administrationdays later, the Governor of Bihar picked section 104 out of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922, modified it an extended it in its modified form to the Patna Administration and Patna Village areas. This was by Notification No. M/A1-201-51-406 L.S.G. dated 23rd AprilThe modified version ran as followsAssessment of taxes - When the Patna Administration Act, 1915, (B & O Act I of 1915), is first extended to any place, the first tax on holdings, latrines or water may be levied from the beginning of the quarter next to that in which the assessment of the tax has been completed in the area to which the Act isHigh Court, purporting to apply In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 ([1951] S.C.R. 747) held that the impugned sections and the notifications complained of are intraare only concerned with the Patna Village area in this case. The appellant and those he represents all live in that area and are the ones who impugn the validity of the taxes levied on them. The were brought under Municipal control on 18th April,The Bengal Municipal Act of 1884 was no longer one of the existing laws in the State of Bihar on that date. It was repealed in full in 1922 and was replaced by the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922. The selected sections of the Bengal Act of 1884 which the Local Government had picked out and applied to Patna Administration were also repealed on 25th April, 1931, and in their place was substituted another set of sections picked out by the Local Government from the Bihar and Orissa Act of 1922 and modified in places. The facts accordingly narrow down to this.In 1928 an executive authority (the Local Government of Bihar and Orissa), subject to the legislative control of the Bihar and Orissa Legislature, was empowered by that Legislature (because of Act I of 1915 amended by Act IV of 1928) to do the following things :-(1) to cancel or modify any existing Municipal laws in the Patna Administration area;(2) to extend to this area all or any of the sections of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922 subject to such restrictions and modifications as it considered fit;(3) to add to the Patna Administration area other areas not already under municipal control.This in short, is the effect of sections 3(1)(f), 5 and 6(b) of the Patna Administration Act of 1915 as amended inArmed with this authority, the Local Government (and later the Governor) exercised all three powers.On 25th April, 1931, the Local Government repealed the existing law in the Patna Administration area, namely the sections of the Bengal Act of 1884 which had been applied there from time to time. In this place, it introduced a new set of laws called from the Bihar and Orissa Act of 1922 with such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit. Then on 18th April, 1951, the Governor added Patna Village to the Patna Administration area. And finally, on 23rd April, 1951, he added a modified version of section 104 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922 to the Municipal laws in these two combined areas.

Court's reasoning:
The Act of 1922 applied to the whole of Bihar and Orissa and one of its essential features is that no municipality competent to tax shall be thrust upon a locality without giving its inhabitants a chance of being heard and of being given an opportunity to object. Sections 4, 5 and 6 afford a statutory guarantee to that effect. Therefore, the Local Government is under a statutory duty imposed by the Act in mandatory terms to listen to the objections an take them into consideration before reaching a decision. In our opinion, this is matter of policy, a policy imposed by the Legislature and embodied in sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Act. We are not able to brush this asideas negligible an it cannot, in our opinion, be left to an executive authority to tear up this guarantee in disregard of the Legislatures solemnly expressed mandate. To do so would be to change the policy of the law and that, the majority in the Delhi Laws Act case ([1951] S.C.R. 747) say, cannot be done by a delegated authority. But the notification cannot be ultra vires if it does not travel beyond the powers conferred by a law which isour opinion, it cannot. As we have already pointed out, this notification gave a sort of fresh Municipal Code to the Patna Administration area. But it did not affect the area with which we are concerned namely, the Patna Village area. It was limited to Patna Administration. The petitioner therefore cannot challenge it because it does not affect him and the question whether it is open to challenge by other persons does not arise. We are accordingly unable to give him the declaration which he seeks regarding that notification.We turn next to the notification of 23rd April, 1951. This does affect him because it subjects him to taxation. It was made under section 3(1)(f), therefore, it will be necessary to examine (1) whether the notification travels beyond the impugned portion of the Act and (2) if not, whether section 3(1)(f) is itself ultrathe only difference between that case and this is that whereas in the former case the whole of an enactment, or a part of it could be extended, here, any section can be picked out. But to pick out a section is to apply a part of an Act, and to pick out a part is to effect a modification, and as the previous decision holds that a part of an Act can be extended, it follows that a section or sections can be picked out and applied, as in Burahs case (5 I.A. 178) where just that was done; also, for the same reason that the whole or a part of an Act can be modified; it follows that a section can also be modified. But even as the modification of the whole cannot be permitted to effect any essential change in the Act or an alteration in its policy, so also a modification of a part cannot be permitted to do that either. If that were not so, the law, as laid down in the previous decision, could be evaded by picking out parts on an Act only, with or without modification, in such a way as to effect an essential change in the Act as a whole. It follows that when a section of an Act is selected for application, whether it is modified or not, it must be done so as not to effect any change of policy, or any essential change in the Act regarded as a whole. Subject to that limitation we hold that section 3(1)(f) is intra vires, that is to say, we hold that any section or sections of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922 can be picked out and applied to "Patna" provided that does not effect any essential change in the Act or alter its policy.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(1)(f) confers and consequently it is ultra vires.