9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment. The subsidy and loan were advanced under an agreement dated 12 November 1959 entered into between the Government and the respondent. The agreement inter alia, provides that the Government being satisfied that the proposed construction would be helpful in implementing the Government's scheme for giving an impetus to industrial housing with a view to relieving the acute shortage of houses intended for industrial workers, has agreed to grant a subsidy not exceeding a sum of ₹ 75,400 and a loan not exceeding a sum of ₹ 1,50,000. Clause 5 of the agreement requires the respondent to observe and perform all the terms, conditions and stipulations as in force at the date of 'Government of India Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers' including the 'Subsidised Housing Allotment Rules' contained therein. Clause 8 of the agreement reads as under: 8. The rent which the loanee shall charge to the allottee for the occupation of one tenement shall not exceed ₹ 26.50 per month, such monthly rent being inclusive of municipal rates and taxes. 3. For the purpose of payment of property tax the Corporation fixed the rateable value of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial workers. The question however, is whether it was a recognised scheme as provided under Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 154. As the answer to the controversy centers round Section 154 Sub-section (3), it is useful to set out hereunder in so far as it is material for this enquiry. It reads: 154. Rateable value how to be determined: x x x (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, the rateable value in the case of a building- x x x (b) constructed, purchased or occupied on or after the 1st day of April 1947 as part of a recognised scheme of subsidised housing for industrial workers or persons belonging to lower income groups or poorer classes; and (c) comprising in part or in whole of tenements let out to such workers or persons on a monthly rent, inclusive of all service and other charges not exceeding rupees thirty two and fifty naye paise for each such tenement shall be fixed- x x x Explanation: For the purpose of this Sub-section recognised scheme of subsidised housing for industrial workers or persons belonging to lower income groups or poorer classes shall mean such scheme as may be recognised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the language of the section it seems to us that what is emphasised is the sanctioning of the scheme and not the consultation with the Corporation. From this point of view, we feel that the omission on the part of the Government to consult the Corporation cannot take the case out of the explanation recognised by Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Act and the Corporation would not be at liberty to take the rateable value more than the actual rentals charged for such tenements. 9. The High Court has also dealt with the terms of the agreement and Clause (8) in particular, imposing limitation on the respondent not to charge anything more than ₹ 26.50 per tenement. Reference has also been made to the restrictions under the Bombay Rent Control Act against raising the standard rent and the intention of the legislature in giving the facilities of subsidy and loan under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It was inter alia, observed that the benefits of subsidy and loan are extended in the larger interests of the society and the nation and also to promote industries. The Government in its wisdom while making concessions in favour of Industrialists has put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f consultation of the Mining Boards is mandatory. This view has been affirmed in Kali Pada Chowdhury v. Union of India (1963)ILLJ303SC . In Narayanan Sankaran Mooss v. The State of Kerala and Anr.: [1974]2SCR60 the provision regarding consultation with the State Electricity Board in Section 4 of the Electricity Act, 1910 as amended in 1950 for exercising the power of revoking a licence by the State Government is held to be mandatory since it was intended to provide additional safeguard to the licence. In Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P. [1974]3SCR624 the prior consultation with the Education Board Under Section 4(1) of the M.P. Act 13 of 1973 for prescription of text-books by the State Government is also held to be mandatory since it is a condition for the exercise of the power. In Agricultural, Horticultural and forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 190 the Minister was required before making an industrial training order, to have prior consultations with the interested Associations Under Section 2(4) of the Industrial Training Act, 1964. The Minister invited numerous organisations to consult with him about an order for the agricultural indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me extent its revenue in a given case. But nevertheless it was held that the consultation is directory and not to be regarded as mandatory. The High Court seems to have erred in this regard. The right to be consulted in opposition to a claim or proposal which will adversely affect its financial interests is to be regarded as mandatory. 15. There must be opportunity for the Corporation to express its views on the recognised scheme and the terms thereof. The opinion expressed by the Corporation may not be binding on the Government to take decision. The Government may take its own decision but consultation with the Corporation must be there on the essential points and the core of the subject involved. The consultation must enable the Corporation to consider the pros and cons of the question as to the concessional rate of property tax. (See: (i) Fletcher v. Minister of Town Planning [1947] 2 All E.R. 496, (ii) R. Pushpam and Anr. v. The State of Madras: AIR1953Mad392 . If there is no such consultation the Corporation cannot be compelled to fix the rateable value of the building under Sub-section (3). 16. Finally, we should refer briefly to one other reasoning adopted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
