1964 (10) TMI 82 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a provision in a statute is mandatory or directory Held that - No serious general inconvenience or injustice to anyone if this part of the provision is held to be mandatory; on the other hand it will be unjust to tax-payers if this part of the provision is held to be directory, inasmuch as the disregard of it would deprive them of the opportunity to make objections to the proposals, and the draft rules. We therefore hold that this part of s. 131(3) is mandatory The manner of publication provided by s. 94(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) is directory. 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 so s. 135(3) will apply and the objection that the tax is not validly imposed must fail. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Publication requirement under Section 131(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act
2. Compliance with the restriction under Section 129(a) regarding the distance of buildings from a standpipe or waterwork

Detailed Analysis:

1. Publication Requirement under Section 131(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act:

Issue: Whether the publication requirement under Section 131(3) read with Section 94(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act is mandatory or directory, and the effect of non-compliance with these provisions.

Analysis:
- Mandatory vs. Directory: The court analyzed whether the provisions for publication under Section 131(3) are mandatory or merely directory. It was determined that the first part of Section 131(3), which mandates the publication of proposals and draft rules to invite objections from the inhabitants, is mandatory. This is because it serves the purpose of providing a reasonable opportunity for taxpayers to object to the proposed tax, which is fundamental to the democratic process.

- Manner of Publication: The second part of Section 131(3), which prescribes the manner of publication as per Section 94(3), is considered directory. The court reasoned that substantial compliance with the manner of publication is sufficient. In this case, the publication was made in a local paper with good circulation, although the paper was published in Urdu and not in Hindi. The actual resolution was published in Hindi, which the court found to be substantial compliance with Section 94(3).

- Section 135(3): The court interpreted Section 135(3) to mean that a notification made under Section 135(2) serves as conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, substantial compliance with the procedural requirements suffices, and the tax imposition is considered valid.

Conclusion: The court held that the mandatory part of Section 131(3) was complied with, and the directory part was substantially complied with. Therefore, the objection regarding the validity of the tax imposition due to non-compliance with publication requirements failed.

2. Compliance with the Restriction under Section 129(a):

Issue: Whether the tax could be levied on the appellant's premises given the restriction under Section 129(a) that no part of the building should be beyond 600 feet from the nearest standpipe or waterwork.

Analysis:
- Interpretation of Section 129(a): The court agreed with the appellant's contention that the restriction means there should be a standpipe or waterwork from which water is made available to the public within the specified distance. It is not sufficient for underground pipes carrying water to pass within 600 feet; there must be something above the ground from which the public can draw water.

- Factual Determination: The court noted that the question of whether all the buildings of the appellant were beyond the radius of 600 feet from the nearest standpipe is a question of fact. The High Court pointed out that there was a dispute on this factual question and insufficient material to come to a definite finding.

Conclusion: The court left the question open for the appellant to pursue other remedies, as the factual determination was not clear.

Separate Judgments:

Hidayatullah J.:
- Agreed with the dismissal of the appeal but emphasized the nature of the functions of a Municipal Committee and its powers of imposing a tax.
- Stressed that the final approval by the Government and the subsequent notification in the Gazette make the tax imposition conclusive, as per Section 135(3).

Mudholkar J.:
- Agreed with the dismissal of the appeal but provided a separate reasoning.
- Argued against construing Section 131(3) as partly mandatory and partly directory. Emphasized that substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 94(3) suffices, and the essential requirement is publication in a local newspaper.

Final Decision:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the tax imposition was valid due to substantial compliance with the publication requirements and the conclusive proof provided by Section 135(3). The factual question regarding the distance of the buildings from the standpipe was left open for further remedies.