344 \ jLIGURI MUNICIP~UTY & OTHERS

)',

AMALF.NDU DAS & OTHERS

. Jaouarr 6 I 984

(A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKK, IR, JJ.]

Comtitlllwn of India /950. Articlrs /J(j & ) ]6. [

High Cmm-Procuding.< wulrr Articlt 2215-Vu/idity of tu.t or kr.r ~""' tinntd-Stay. u! rccnvry cf 1~-'C o,. /vy c/aimrd-Fi1cturs to b~ tol/.fll/<'rfd bJ H;,; Court bt{uregro, rt o{Uurim sra.v~

Suprmt Curl-/ntcr/rtm:e wlrh lnt, r/ocmory ort!r of Hixh Court grtD~:tq stay of rf!Cnvtr.Y of tax-When arf.r; r.

Tile appellant Muuic.:ip01lity in it> Appeal by Special U.we impugnoi ll< interlocutory order or the High Courl rcstmtnin.:. che lunicipaHiy from r..;..'()\(!ir.: a graduated consohdate<l r.uc on the unnuai value of the holding' in t<nn<uf c'< amendtd provisions in soctioru .i:!J nnd 04 of the llcngal Munic1pal A<l, 19;:, amended hy the Bonsai Mumcipal (Amendment) Act, 19SO. '

Allowing the Appeal,

HELD : J. The H ish Coun •hould not in roin~ under Ar1iclc 2:!6,!

I he Con)titution grnnl any "t.ay of recovery qf tuX s., t\'C unJc..r very . ''"-cul circumstttncc:, The &r:tnt uf stay in uch matlcn, :JlouiJ be an cxc..rnon and I" a rule. P45~1

Th 1.. · • • ,. p zuioc• 2. e ..:')' ur unpOt do.:~ not bc.'\:omc.; b . .ul a' 'Uun as a \\ nl c: tbc in, lltulc<i to a .. "'il tt.c \alidi l)' of lhc levy. 'fher..: i~ no \\:.trrant for rc, umnli .o( levy lu b~ rod at the V<ry thre>huiJ or !he l)rC.:t cthng,, The maul purpol< [l.J\):nc an int:rim order is tu evolve u ork;•bl~ furmuJJ. of d "'or'k:iblc ttrr_J"st" nt<llt to !he c."cnl t:llie<l lur by tho dcmaq\h 1>f th~ si!uuuu. Thu on)} co>fil'lcl>" !ion at that jullCturc i, to CH$Ufc that no prcjudo, c is octMionL"tl 10 tha: tepa):

zn c""' I he~ ultimat.dy suc-=J. Thi• obie<:l un be :1twio"l hy r"~0""-' -.1 Aulhority k't-yi11i •he i•nrn'l Ill lvo un uJcrwkius 111 n:funJ or •~Ju, tthc "'~ .U•liOunt U¥--oin, t futun: doc;, in the CV\!Ill uf the t:lltin: h,:vy Of a f"UI the~ Nitf

ulhm:ucly h<ld 10 1>.: in\'alid by zhe Court.· ('45 GH; 3~1> AI

. 3 The . · · . ~, r\•tol: m.un purpo...c of fM11\IOg un Jnlc.c11n IJr\Jr ~~•II) C:\'ohc a . ('(~

rmn~JJ or. a orkaql(; arrngclllcnt IO !he 'c.rcnl caJi<J fur hy lhO ,~,:IIlii~~ vf ell<

'tt~111'~11 kcc:pmg IU n11Hd lht! t>n.:.lUITl(ltion rcg-..lrJ.in¥ the tomiiiUthlllhiJ _ e1t*

kv~<luun and Ill~ vuln.:rahiilly of tc ch'lll.:nKe, llnly is llfl.kr lhat no zrn:l" "'1°'?' " . O<C"J>on.."<l. The Court ha• th~., r,.,.e to moe a ddi.:tc t>J]a•., .. • o>JI

on, td~~H\¥ the pros and cons uf tho Ol.ttter fe, l l.ugr lmblic ittttrCS' .s

J<OilJr~OLc-.1 and iohtitutional OlllbJrJ"!tlcllt ;, ,..,.,.r.,.., cJ. [H6H; H7,\} •

.- :.:_=.:.- .;.....;- -- ~--·

l . . ;

~ 'I

!I' ; . -: L'

:-,_

I ,_

\ .

I~ i l ,.

l~ r

SII.IOURT MUNICIPALITY V. A. DAS ( Sc'l!, J.) 345

4. The Court ha• to •h.ow aware~~· of .r_he fact tat in the case of a ftJ11ic•pllitY it cannot fncun or mc:cr •L, ~ancal oblig:lllons if !ls source of

~ l$ blocked by an tntcnm order rcsrr.unmg ot from rcco, cring the taxes o.s ,.-nue . . · Tl M . • 1' h · • the impugned provrsoon. • te . umcopa tty as to marntarn es.cnrial civic scr- r run public institutioi\S, purcha~ supphC$ and poy the salaries of irs cmplo)c..~ '"'"'The grant of an interlocutory order wo uld JY, lrlne the ac!ministrntion and ~tc the entire working. Th,-.c seriou• rnmilica1i0n• were lost siht of by The Hish Court' in The in.rant cn<c while makrng the imrrned order. [346 CD]

CIVIL Arrr:tlATE JurHSr>rcnnN: Civi1 Arpcal No. 762. of 1984.

;\pp~:tl by sr~ial leave for an interlocutory <>rdcr dated August J5. !933 of th~ C:k-utta High Curt.

K. K._ Venugnpol, N.N. Gnp111 and H K. Puri for the Appellants.

S.L. A•rc, ja for til~ Rcpandc nt.

The Or.!Lr of tli~ Court w.1~ del ivcrd by ...

SE-;, J. T;1i\ appa l by sp:cial kavc is directed ag:tinst on

imrltr.utory order dated Aur•~'t ::s. 1983 pas,; eu by the Calcutt<J Hrgh Court rstraining the Siliguri 1\.Iuni.:ipality, the appellant herein.

_frm covering a grtdl!Itld ct.•nsolid'!tcd rate on th~ annual valu~ of

th~ holding~ in terms of the amcnd•d ptovisic-ns in ss. i23 and P4 of th: B~g:1l M u ni•:ipal Act. I?J:!. a~ amcndd b~ the Bengal Municipal

{t\ :n ~•t.lrn"nt) Act, I 'J~O. . ·

W~. arc constmin~J •o mke the obsct\'ations which follows us

e de, feel dima\'cJ a t the tcndcncv on the part of some of the fl•gh C'nurt~ to g-rant interlocutory rdcrs for the mere usking. Nor~ rl!y, th~ lligh Court~ h\.luiJ n u l, ; IS u rule. in proceedings under u ~~- .2:!1) of th~ Constitution gr!lnt any stay of recovery of tax save

Ill, r very ccpti, m;~ l cin:um, tance~. The gnnlt of st<Jy in such ·

Jl!cr~ h l . • ou d b~ ; Ill eccpllrn anu not a rult.

It . . . .

h.td . h 01:\:dl~\ to strcs th •• t a leV)' or 1m post docs not become

oftha•~ soon~~~ a w6t p:titi,, n is intiru tcd in ortkr to assail the valiity ' b4d .

0 levy. So als" there i~ nn w:m ant for presuming the levy to be;. at th• v h Th 1 'd t'on at tl . . • •ry t rcltoltl uf the pwc.:ed1ngs. c on y con$1 era 1 1•tt Jun t .. · · d t the rJt• urc 1s to cnsur~ th; tt nn pr~Jud1 r.:e 1~ occastonc o

pr~ l~:r~ il1 cu.~~ th.:y ultimatdy succeed at the conclusion of the CqiJno, Tl · h b d r ijlh . e us oi:ljl'ct c:tn hL' att.:rincu b)' rcqumng t e c Y " lrJ[y lc • fi d V>'Jng the imp.,~ t to give a n undertaking to re un or

F ..

 :---.~~

[l984J2~.c.l_ \ adiust against future dues, the levy of tax or rate or a part tl

SUPREJI!B COUR! REPORTS

" . f 1 • \ereor as the case may be; m the event o t 1e entire levy or a part th • being ultimately held to be inv111id by the Court withouf oblor the taltpayers to institute a civil suit in order to claim the a~!:~ I already recovered from them. On the other hand, the Coun can pe unmindful of the need to protect the authority levying th~ ~~ for, at that stage the Court has to proceed on the hypothesis tha;

the challenge may or may not succeed .. The Court has to show .awareness of the fact that in a case like the present a municipalitv

cannot function or meet its fiiiancial obligations if its source of re\'111; is blocked by an interil!l order restraining the_ municipality from recovering the taxes as per the impugned provision. And that tt~ . municipality has to maintain essential civic services like water supply. street lighting and public streets etc., apart from running public institutions like schools, dispensaries, libraries etc. What is more, supplies have to be purchased and salaries have to be paid. The grant

of an interlocutory order of this nature would paralyze the ac.lmini>tra 'tion'and disloJcate the entire working of the municipJlity. It ms

that these serious ramifications 'of the matter were lost sight of while

making the impugned order.

We will b~ failing in our duty if we do not IHlvert to a fellute which causes us dismay and distress. On a. prvious OCCl>ion, Division Bench had vacated an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge on similar facts in a similar situatio11. Even so wl1c~ 8 similar matter giving rise to the present appeal cme up anain, tl\CS3me lear11cd Judge whose order had been reversed earlier, granted a non sp!aking interlocutory order of the aforesaid nature.· This orMr was in turn confirmed by a Division .Bench without a speaking onler

'J nhld art1cu at1ng reasoi)S for granting a stay when the earlier enc . vacated the stay .. W.:. m~n no disrespect to the High Court 10 emphasizing the necessity for self-imposed di6cipline in such mottel'l in obeisance to such weighty institutiOilJl considerations li~~ the

' t • d1srt~· neeu o ma1ntam decorum nnu comity. So ulso we man no h p:ct to the High Court In ,; trl!ssing the need for self-discipline 00 ~

part of the High Court in rasin" interim orders without entern~ .

I . • . . "' . f I, thg" mto t 1e question of arnphtude ond width of the powrs <1 1 1.' a\ Court .to grant interim relief. The main purpose of passing un

11;~; t~ order u to evolve a workable formula or a workable arrange~ nJ the extent called for by the demands of the situation kcepinll 1~ tn~ , g tl . ' J 1sloU• 1e presumptiOn regarding the constitutionality of the eg ble and the vulnerability of the challenge only 1n 0. rder that no irrePo~ 1e · · · • . deli"~ InJury u occasioned. The Court hns therefore to st!lke a

) __..

SlLIGURl MUNICIPALITY V. A. DAS ( Sell, J.) 347

: .. · baince after cosid; rin~ the pos and co_ns ?f te matter lest larger A ;;; ·. public interest ts not JCopardtzcd and msttluttonal cmbarassment .

~· ·,

I • • i

i •' i : ..

is eschewed.

. . For these reasons, the jippeal must bc~; allowcd. The order passed . by the High. Court dated Augu; t 25, 1983 rcstraning the Siliguri

Municipality from recovering a graduated consolidated rate on the annual value of the holdings in terms of the amended provisions contained in ss. 123 and 12~ of the Bcogal Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1980 is set aside. We wish to pla~:c on record that Shri Venugopal appearing with Shri Naro Narayan Gooptu has given an undertaking on behalf of the Siliguri Municipality that the municipality shall rcrund the dil\crcnce between the revised and the old rates within three months of tl1e o.rdcr of the High. Court in case the writ petition ·. is finally allowed by the .High Court... · ·

Tltcre shall be no order .as to costs.' ..

N.V.K. .Appeal allowed.