Judgment Case ID: 6838

Judgment:
Appeal No.903 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 5/6 12 1977 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.1937 of 1971. V.C. Mahajan	 B.K. Prasad	 Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal and C.V. Subba Rao (NP) for the Appellant. K.R. Chowdhary for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court passed in Spe cial Civil Application No. 1937 of 1971 decided on December 5	 1977. The Union of India	 the appellant herein	 approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notices of demand issued by the Municipal Council	 Purna	 respondent No. 1 herein	 claiming tax to the tune of Rs. 28	400/ by way of "Service charges" due for the period 1954 to 1.960. The claim of the Union of India primarily was based under Article 285 of the Constitution read with Sec tion 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890. The High Court interplaying the two provisions negatived the claim of the appellant by holding as follows: "In terms of Article 285(2) these properties will continue to be liable to such taxes 'until Parliament by law otherwise provides. Mr. Govilkar has not drawn our attention to any specific law made by the Parliament pro viding otherwise. He	 however	 relied on section 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 but	 as indicated earlier	 provisions of section 135 cannot have any overriding ' effect against the continuance of such laws when authorised by Article 285 (2) of the Constitution. It is not possible for us to hold that Railways Act is an Act made by the Parliament as contem plated under sub Article (2) of Article 285 of the Constitution" The High Court further observed that: "As Section 135 of the Railways Act is now substituted by the corresponding provi sions of the above enactment	 it is unneces sary to consider the contention of Mr. Govil kar as to effect of the absence of any Notifi cation. We have already indicated how section 135 or the corresponding section of the new enactment can have no overriding effect as against the saving of laws contemplated under Article 285 (2) of the Constitution. " 185 The view expressed by the High Court is obviously erro neous. Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890 gets saved under Article 285(1) of the Constitution itself. The said Article provides that property of the Union shall	 save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide	 be exempt from all taxes imposed by the State or by any author ity within a State. Section 135 of the Railways Act provides as under: "Taxation of railways by local authorities: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment	 or in any agreement or award based on any enactment	 the following rules shall regulate the levy of taxes in respect of railways from railways administrations in aid of the funds of local authorities	 namely:. (1) A railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the (Central Gov ernment) has	 by notification in the official gazette	 declared the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax. (2) While a notification of the (Central Government)	 under clause (1) of this Section is in force	 the railway administration shall be liable to pay to the local authority either the tax mentioned in the notification or in lieu thereof such sum	 if any as an officer appointed in this behalf by the (Central Government ) may having regard to all the circumstances of the case	 from time to time determine to be fair and reasonable. (3) The (Central Government ) may at any time revoke or vary a notification under clause (1) of this Section: (4) Nothing in this Section is to be construed as debarring any railway administration from entering into contract with any local authori ty for the supply of water or light or for the scavenging of railway premises or for any other service which the local authority may be rendering or be prepared to render within any part of the local area under its control. (5) 'Local Authority ' in this section means a local authority as defined in the General Clauses Act	 1887 and includes any authority legally entitled to or entrusted with the control or management of any fund for the maintenance of watchmen or for conservancy of a river". 186 The aforesaid provision	 existing as it is	 in terms permits taxation of Railways by the local authority in the manner given therein; the Central Government being the controlling and the regulating authority permitting liabili ty at a given point of time	 its extent and manner. The Indian Railways Act being a central enactment has no role to play in sub Article (2) of Article 285	 for that is a sphere in which the State legislation operates. The reasoning of the High Court to oust the applicability of Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act on the test of sub Article (2) of Article 285 was totally misplaced	 as also in not venturing to create room for it in sub Article (1) of Article 285. The interplay of the constitutional and legal provisions being well cut and well defined requires no marked elaboration to stress the point. Accordingly	 we allow this appeal	 set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and issue the writ direction asked for in favour of the Union of India restraining the respondent council from raising demands on the railway in regard to service charges. We make it clear that the rights of the local authority as flowing under Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890 stand preserved in the event of the Central Government moving into the matter	 if not already moved. In the circumstances of the case	 however	 there will be no order as to costs. V.P.R Appeal allowed.

Summary:
The Union of India	 the appellant	 approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution	 challenging notices of demand issued by the Municipal Council	 respond ent No.1	 claiming tax to the tune of Rs. 28	400 by way of 'Service charges ' due for the period 1954 to 1960	 under Article 285 of the Constitution read with Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890. The High Court dismissed the writ petition negativing the claim	 against which	 this appeal by special leave was filed. Allowing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD 1. Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act	 1890 gets saved under Article 285(1) of the Constitution itself. The said Article provides that property of the Union shall	 save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide	 be exempt from all taxes imposed by the State or by any authority within a State. [185 A B] 2. Section 1315 of the Railways Act permits taxation of Railways by the local authority in the manner given therein; the Central Government being the controlling and the regu lating authority permitting liability at a given point of time	 its extent and manner. The Indian Railways Act being a central enactment has no role to play in sub Article (2) of Article 285	 for that is a sphere in which the State legis lation operates. [186 A B] 3. The reasoning of the High Court to oust the applica bility of Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act on the test of sub Article (2) of Article 285 was totally misplaced	 as also in not venturing to create room for it in sub Article (1) of Article 285. The interplay of the constitutional 184 and legal provisions being well cut and well defined re quired no marked elaboration to stress the point. [186 B C]