9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification dated August 22, 1955. 2. Validity of the Notification dated December 15, 1959 and its amendment by Notification dated April 14, 1960. 3. Whether the omission of the second schedule in the Notification dated December 15, 1959 invalidates the levy of octroi. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification dated August 22, 1955 The plaintiff contended that the Notification dated August 22, 1955, extending the limits of the Tulsipur Town Area to include Shitlapur village, was void as it was promulgated without giving a prior opportunity for representations or objections. The court examined Section 3 of the U.P. Town Area Act, 1914, which authorizes the State Government to declare any area as a town area without requiring prior publicity or consideration of objections. The court held that the function of the State Government under Section 3 is legislative in nature and not subject to the principles of natural justice, such as the maxim "audi alteram partem." The declaration under Section 3 was characterized as conditional legislation, not subordinate legislation, and thus did not require the procedural safeguards applicable to rule-making under Section 39 of the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the plaintiff's contention and upheld the validity of the Notification dated August 22, 1955. 2. Validity of the Notification dated December 15, 1959 and its amendment by Notification dated April 14, 1960 The plaintiff argued that the Notification dated December 15, 1959, was inchoate as it did not include the second schedule defining the octroi limits, and that this defect could not be cured by the Notification dated April 14, 1960, which amended the earlier notification without following the prescribed procedure. The court noted that the procedure for imposing octroi, including the publication of a draft notification inviting objections, was followed. The omission of the second schedule was deemed a minor error, not affecting the validity of the octroi levy. The court emphasized that the intention to levy octroi within the Tulsipur Town Area was clear from the notifications, and the subsequent amendment merely rectified the omission without altering the substance of the levy. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of both notifications. 3. Whether the omission of the second schedule in the Notification dated December 15, 1959 invalidates the levy of octroi The plaintiff contended that the omission of the second schedule in the Notification dated December 15, 1959, rendered the octroi levy ineffective. The court examined Rule 1 of the octroi rules, which referred to the octroi limits specified in the second schedule. Despite the omission, the court found that the intention to levy octroi within the Tulsipur Town Area was explicit in the notifications. The court held that the omission was not fatal as the boundaries of the town area had already been defined in the Notification dated August 22, 1955. The subsequent Notification dated April 14, 1960, which incorporated the second schedule, was viewed as a rectification of an inconsequential mistake. Thus, the court concluded that the omission did not invalidate the levy of octroi. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Notifications dated August 22, 1955, December 15, 1959, and April 14, 1960. The court found that the legislative nature of the declaration under Section 3 of the Act did not require adherence to principles of natural justice, and the omission of the second schedule in the Notification dated December 15, 1959, was a rectifiable error that did not affect the validity of the octroi levy. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
