Title not extracted — [1984] 2 S.C.R. 344

.A 344 ~jLIGURI MUNICIP~UTY & OTHERS )', \ AMALF.NDU DAS & OTHERS . Jaouarr 6 I 984

Comtitlllwn of India /950. Articlrs /J(j & ) ]6. [ High Cmm-Procuding.< wulrr Articlt 2215-Vu/idity of tu.t or kr.r ~""' tinntd-Stay. u! rccnv~ry cf 1~-'C o,. /~vy c/aimrd-Fi1cturs to b~ tol/.fll/<'rfd bJ H;,; Court bt{ure·gro,rt o{Uu~rim sra.v~

Supr~mt Cu~rl-/ntcr/~rtm:e wlrh lnt,r/ocmory ort!~r of Hixh Court grtD~:tq stay of rf!Cnvtr.Y of tax-When arf.r;~r.

Tile appellant Muuic.:ip01lity in it> Appeal by Special U.we impugnoi ll< interlocutory order or the High Courl rcstmtnin.:. che ~lunicipaHiy from r..;..'()\(!ir.: a graduated consohdate<l r.uc on the unnuai value of the holding' in t<nn<uf c'< amendtd provisions in soctioru .i:!J nnd 04 of the llcngal Munic1pal A<l, 19;:, amended hy the Bonsai Mumcipal (Amendment) Act, 19SO. '

Allowing the Appeal,

2Copy pinpoint2. The ..:')' ur unpO~t do·.:~ not bc.'\:omc.; b..ul a' 'Uun as a \\ nl c: tbc in,lltulc<i to a .."'il tt.c \alidi l)' of lhc levy. 'fher..: i~ no \\:.trrant for ~rc,umnli .o( levy lu b~ rod at the V<ry thre>huiJ or !he l)rC.:t cthng,, The maul purpol< [l.J\):nc an int:rim order is tu evolve u ~ork;•bl~ furmuJJ. of d "'or'k:iblc ttrr_J"st" nt<llt to !he c."cnl t:llie<l lur by tho dcmaq\h 1>f th~ si!u~uuu. Thu on)} co>fil'lcl>" !ion at that jullCturc i, to CH$Ufc that no prcjudo,c is octM~ionL"tl 10 tha: ~tepa): zn c""' Ihe~ ultimat.dy suc-=J. Thi• obie<:l un be :1twio«l hy r«~ 0 ""-' · -.1 Aulhority k't-yi11i •he i•nrn'l Ill ~lvo un ~uJcrwkius 111 n:funJ or •~Ju,tthc "'~ .U•liOunt U¥--~oin,t futun: doc;, in the CV\!Ill uf the t:lltin: h,:vy Of a f"UI the~ Nitf G ulhm:ucly h<ld 10 1>.: in\'alid by zhe Court.· ('45 G·H; 3~1> AI . 3 The · . · · · · . ~,·r\•tol: m.un purpo...c of fM11\IOg un Jnlc.c 11n IJr\J~r ~~•II) C:\'ohc a . ('(~ r~mn~JJ or. a ~orkaql(; arr~ngclllcnt IO !he 'c .rcnl caJi<J fur hy lhO ,~,:IIlii~~ vf ell< 'tt~ 111'~11 kcc:pmg IU n11Hd lht! t>n.:.lUITl(ltion rcg-..lrJ.in¥ the tomiiiUthlll~hiJ _e1t* kv~<l~uun and Ill~ vuln.:rahiilly of t~c ch'lll.:nKe, llnly is llfl.kr lhat no zrn:l" ~ "'1°'?' " . O<C"J>~on.."<l. The Court ha• th~.,r,.,.e to mo~e a ddi.:~tc t>J]a•.,.. • o>JI H ~on,td~~H\¥ the pros and cons uf tho Ol.ttter fe,l l.ug~r lmblic ittttrCS' .s J<OilJr~OLc-.1 and iohtitutional OlllbJrJ»!tlcllt ;, ,..,.,.r.,..,cJ. [H6H; H7,\} •

SII.IOURT MUNICIPALITY V. A. DAS ( Sc'l!, J.) 345 l . .;

4Copy pinpoint4. The Court ha• to •h.ow aware~~· of .r_he fac t t~at in the case of a A ftJ11ic•pllitY it cannot f~ncu~n or mc:cr •L, ~~anc~al oblig:lllons if !ls source o f ~ l$ blocked by an tntcnm order rcsrr.unmg ot from rcco,·cring the taxes o.s ,.-~nue . . · · 1' • the impugned provrsoon. • te . umcopa tty has to marntarn Tl M . • · · es.cnrial civic scr- 'I ~r run public institutioi\S, purcha~ supphC$ and poy the salaries of irs cmplo)c..~ ;. '"'"'The grant of an interlocutory order wo uld JY,lr~lne the a c!ministrntion and -: L' ~~tc the entire working. Th,-.c serio u• rnmilica1 i0n• were lost si~ht of by The :-,_ Hish Court' in The in.rant cn<c while makrng the imrrned order. [346 CD] B CIVIL Arrr:tlATE JurHSr>rcnnN : Civi 1 Arpcal No. 762. of 1984.

;\pp~:tl by sr~~ial leave for an interlocutory <>rdcr dated August J5. !933 of th~ C:~k-u tta High C~urt.

,I _ K. K._ Venugnpol, N.N. Gn~p111 a nd H K. Puri for the Appellants. c S.L. A•rc,ja for til ~ Rc~pandc nt. \. I~ The Or.!L·r of tli~ Court w.1~ delivcr~d by ... i l ,. SE-;, J. T;1i\ app~al by sp:cial kavc is directed ag:tinst on im~rltr.utory order dated Aur•~'t ::s. 1983 pas,;eu by the Calcutt<J Hrgh Court r~straining the Siliguri 1\.Iuni.:ipality, the appellant herein. D

_fr~m ~covering a gr~tdl!Itl~d ct.•nsol id '! tcd rate on th~ annual valu~ of th~ holding~ in terms of the amcnd•·d ptovisic-ns in ss. i23 and P4 o f th·: B~~g:1l M u ni•:ipal Act. I?J:!. a~ amcnd~d b~ the Bengal Municipal E l~ r {t\:n~•t.lrn"nt) Act, I 'J~O. . ·

W~. arc constmin~J •o m~ke the obsct\'ations which follows us ~e de, feel di~ma\'cJ a t the tcndcncv on the part of some of the fl•gh C'nurt~ to g-rant interlocutory ~rdcrs for the mere usking. Nor~ ~ rl!y, th~ lligh Court~ ~h\.luiJ n u l , ;IS u rule. in proceedings under F u ~~- .2:!1) of th~ Constitution gr!lnt any stay of recovery of tax save· , ~r very c~c~pti,m;~l cin:um,tance~. The gnnlt ·of st<Jy in such · IllJl!cr~ ·h l . • ~ ou d b~ ;Ill e~ccpllr·n anu not a rult. It . . . ~. h.td . oftha•~ h 01:\:dl~\ to strc~s th••t a leV)' or 1m post docs not become soon~~~ a w6t p:titi,,n is in~tirutcd in ortkr to assail the vali~ity G ' b4 d . levy. So als" there i~ nn w:m ant for presumin g the levy to be;. 0

at tl 1at . th·• . • v· • ry t hrc~ltoltl uf the pwc.:ed1ngs. · Thc on 1y con$1'd era t'on 1 rJt• •tt Jun ~· t urc..1s to cnsur~ th;tt nn pr~Jud1 · · r.:e ·1~ occastonc · d t o the pr~ ~l~:r~ il1 cu.~~ th.:y ultimatdy succeed at the conclusion of the CqiJno, Tlus ~ijlh . e · · oi:ljl'ct c:tn hL' att.:rincu b)' rcqumng· · h b d r t e c Y" H lrJ[y lc V>'Jng · the imp.,~ t to give a n undertaking to re fiund or •

SUPREJI!B COUR! REPORTS [l984J2~.c.l_ \

I .A adiust against future dues, the levy of tax or rate or a part tl as"the case may be; .m the event of t 11e entire • levy or a part th • \ereor being ultimately held to be inv111id by the Court withouf obl~or · the talt·payers to institute a civil suit in order to claim the a~!:~ already recovered from them. On the other hand, the Coun can pe unmindful of the need to protect the authority levying th~ ~~ B for, at that stage the Court has to proceed on the hypothesis tha; the challenge may or may not succeed .. The Court has to show .awareness of the fact that in a case like the present a municipalitv cannot function or meet its fiiiancial obligations if its source of re\'111; is blocked by an interil!l order restraining the_ municipality from recovering the taxes as per the impugned provision. And that tt~ c . municipality has to maintain essential civic services like water supply. street lighting and public streets etc., apart from running public institutions like schools, dispensaries, libraries etc. What is more, supplies have to be purchased and salaries have to be paid. The grant of an interlocutory order of this nature would paralyze the ac.lmini>tra· 'tion'·and disloJcate the entire working of the municipJlity. ·It ~ms D that these serious ramifications 'of the matter were lost sight of while making the impugned order.

We will b~ failing in our duty if we do not IHlvert to a fellute which causes us dismay and distress. On a. pr~vious OCCl>ion, ~ Division Bench had vacated an interim order ·passed by a learned E Single Judge on similar facts in a similar situatio11. Even so wl1c~ 8 similar matter giving rise to the present appeal c~me up anain, tl\CS3me lear11cd Judge whose order had been reversed earlier, granted a non· sp!aking interlocutory order of the aforesaid nature.· This orMr was in turn confirmed by a Division .Bench without a speaking onler ' Jat1ng art1cu · reasoi)S for granting a stay when the earlier ·nh~ld enc . F.. vacated the stay.. W.:. m~~n no disrespect to the High Court 10 emphasizing the necessity for self-imposed di 6cipline in such mottel'l in obeisance to such weighty institutiOilJl considerations li~~ the • · decorum nnu comity. So ulso we m~an no d1srt~· neeu·' t o ma1ntam h1 p:ct to the High Court In ,;trl!ssing the need for self-discipline 00 ~ G part of the High Court in ·ras~in" interim orders without enter~n~ . I . • . . "' . f I, thg" mto t 1e question of arnphtude ond width of the pow~rs <1 11.' ·a\ Court .to grant interim relief. The main purpose of passing un 11;~;t~ order u to evolve a workable formula or a workable arrange~ ·nJ · the extent called for by the demands of the situation kcepinll 1~ tn~ ,g tl1e . presumptiOn ' regarding the constitutionality of the Jeg 1sloU• · ble H and the vulnerability of the challenge only 1·n 0. rder that no irrePo~ 1e · · · · · · • . deli"~ InJury u occasioned. The Court hns therefore to st!lke a

SlLIGURl MUNICIPALITY V. A. DAS ( Sell, J.) 347

: .. · · bai~nce after co~sid;rin~ the p~os and co_ns ?f t~e matter lest larger A ;;; ~ ·. public interest ts not JCopardtzcd and msttluttonal cmbarassment is eschewed.

. ~· . . For these reasons, the jippeal must bc~;allowcd. The order passed . by the High. Court dated Augu;t 25, 1983 rcstraning the Siliguri ·, Municipality from recovering a graduated consolidated rate on the B annual value of the holdings in terms of the amended provisions contained in ss. 123 and 12~ of the Bcogal Municipal (Amendment) }. Act, 1980 is set aside. We wish to pla~:c on record that Shri Venugopal appearing with Shri Naro Narayan Gooptu has given an undertaking on behalf of the Siliguri Municipality that the municipality shall rcrund the dil\crcnce between the revised and the old rates within c three months of tl1e o.rdcr of the High. Court in case the writ petition ·. is finally allowed by the .High Court... · · · I • i • Tltcre shall be no· order .as to costs.' .. i •' i.. : N.V.K. .Appeal allowed.