1964 (2) TMI 89 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of discretion in denying relief under Article 226.
2. Adequacy of alternative remedy.
3. Ultra vires nature of Rule 6 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court.
4. Specific legal objections raised by the appellant regarding the tax levy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exercise of Discretion in Denying Relief under Article 226:
The Court examined whether the discretion exercised by the lower court in denying relief under Article 226 was appropriate. The judgment emphasized that a Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower court if it was exercised in good faith, giving due weight to relevant matters without being swayed by irrelevant ones. The appellant did not argue that the discretion was exercised mala fide or on irrelevant considerations. The Court concluded that the discretion was exercised appropriately, considering the appellant had an adequate alternative remedy.

2. Adequacy of Alternative Remedy:
The appellant argued that the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922, was inadequate due to the onerous condition of depositing the tax amount before the appeal could be heard. The Court found this contention frivolous, noting that the appellant did not allege any facts proving that the conditions were onerous. The Court highlighted that the financial condition of the appellant did not suggest an inability to deposit the tax amount. The Court concluded that the alternative remedy was adequate and the appellant's failure to utilize it justified the dismissal of the petition.

3. Ultra Vires Nature of Rule 6 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court:
The judgment briefly touched upon Rule 6 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, suggesting it appeared to be ultra vires. However, this matter was not discussed in detail at the Bar, and no definite opinion was given. The rule was criticized for curtailing the Court's discretion under Article 226 by mandating dismissal if an alternative remedy existed, which was deemed ultra vires.

4. Specific Legal Objections Raised by the Appellant Regarding the Tax Levy:
The appellant raised several legal objections against the tax levy, including:
- Section 124 of the Act violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The levy exceeding the maximum prescribed by Article 286 of the Constitution.
- The Act expiring on December 31, 1959.
- The new body, Antarim Zila Parishad, not having the authority to levy the tax.
- The appellant not carrying on business for more than six months in the assessment year.
- Liability to pay tax to the Municipal Board of Muzaffarnagar, leading to double taxation.
- The absence of circle members rendering the tax assessment invalid.

The Court noted that several of these points were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, were not mentioned in the petition, or did not figure in the memorandum of appeal. The Court concluded that none of these points presented a question of difficulty and could be easily decided by the appellate authority. The judgment emphasized that the existence of these points did not necessitate the admission of the petition, as they could be addressed through the alternative remedy of appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decision to deny relief under Article 226 due to the availability of an adequate alternative remedy. The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and criticized Rule 6 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court as potentially ultra vires.