# Varshney v. Tehsildar

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 98
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-07-22
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/varshney-v-tehsildar-39566
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
98

19. In this regard learned counsel has
drawn attention of this court towards the
decision of this court made by the Division
Bench in writ petition no. Nil of 1990 Ram
Kumar
Varshney
Vs.
Tehsildar
Kol
Aligarh-cum-Election Officer and another)
in which it has been held that the meeting
of general body of the society can only be
called by the Registrar and the officer
authorized by the Registrar comes into
picture only after the meeting has been
convened by the Registrar and it was
directed to the Assistant Registrar to issue
notice fixing the date of meeting and also
framing time table.

20. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of
the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section
25 the meeting of the General Body is
liable to be called by the Registrar for
electing the office bearers of the society in
question.

21. In view of the above, the order
passed by the Up Zila Adhikari Mendawal
calling meeting of general body of the
society in question and framing time table
for election is liable to be quashed.

22. In the result writ petition no.
37612 of 1998 succeeds and is allowed to
the extent that the order calling meeting of
general body of the society in question by
the Up Zila Adhikari Menhdawal vide
order dated 3.11.1998 is illegal and is
hereby quashed.

23. A writ in the nature of Mandamus
is
issued
commanding
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur to call meeting of the General
Body of the Society in question for
electing office bearer and frame time table,
but the same may be presided and be
conducted by the Up Zila Adhikari
Menhdawal,
or
any
other
officer
authorized by the Assistant Registrar as the
case may be.

The parties shall bear their own cost.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

8WWDP &KDULWDEOH 7UXVW
DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK WKURXJK 6HFUHWDU\
/RFDO %RGLHV 6HFUHWDULDW /XFNQRZ DQG
DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 9LNUDP 1DWK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&

83 1DJDU 0DKDSDOLND $GKLQL\DP
6V DQG 6 ‹ DV DPHQGHG E\
83 0XQLFLSDO &RUSRUDWLRQ DPHQGPHQW
$FW 3HWLWLRQHU D &KDULWDEOH 7UXVW
HVWDEOLVKHG
D
6FKRRO21DJDU
1LJDP
LPSRVHG SURSHUW\ WD[ RQ LW 3HWLWLRQHU
FODLPHG H[HPSWLRQ XV F *2 GDWHG

SURYLGLQJ
WKDW
LQVWLWXWLRQV
LPSDUWLQJ HGXFDWLRQ RQ FRPPHUFLDO EDVLV
ZHUH QRW HQWLWOHG WR EHQHILW RI H[HPSWLRQ
RI WD[ +HOG WKDW WKH OLDELOLW\ FDQQRW EH
LPSRVHG E\ *RYHUQPHQW 2UGHU )XUWKHU
KHOG WKDW XQGHU DPHQGHG 6 F QR
JHQHUDO
WD[
FRXOG
EH
LPSRVHG
XSRQ
SHWLWLRQHU
&ROOHJH
ZKLFK
LV
QHLWKHU
SURIHVVLRQDO QRU YRFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ
+HOG SDUD
3All] Uttam Charitable Trust and another V. State of U.P. and others
99
,Q YLHZ RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV SURYLVLRQ RI
6HFWLRQ

RI
WKH
$FW
DV
ZHOO
DV
DPHQGHG FODXVH F RI WKH 6HFWLRQ
UHIHUUHG WR DERYH :H DUH RI WKH RSLQLRQ
WKDW QR JHQHUDO WD[ FRXOG EH LPSRVHG
XSRQ WKH FROOHJH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZKLFK LV
DGPLWWHGO\
QHLWKHU
SURIHVVLRQDO
QRU
YRFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner is a Public
Charitable Trust as stated in paragraph 3 of
the writ petition and it established a school
in Ghaziabad in the State of U.P. known as
Uttam School for girls.

2. Under Section 173 of the U.P.
Nagar
Mahapalika
Adhiniyam
1959,
provision is made for levying the property
taxes like general tax, water tax, drainage
tax, conservancy tax.

Section 175 of the Act provides for
exceptions to the main provision extending
benefit of exemption from general tax on
certain buildings. Section 177 of the Act
provides that general tax shall be levied in
respect of all buildings and lands in the
city except:

"(a) buildings and lands solely used for
purposes connected with the disposal
of the deed;

 (b) buildings
and lands or portions
thereof solely occupied and used for
public worship or for a charitable
purpose;

 (c) buildings solely used as jails, court
houses,
treasuries,
schools
and
colleges."

3. The Government vide order dated
22.7.1998 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition)
without amending the act attempted to
explain the object of exemption to the
schools and colleges and provided that the
institutions which are giving education on
commercial basis could not be given
benefit of exemption of tax. Feeling
aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition
on 12.2.1999.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of Nagar Nigam respondent nos. 2
and 3. No counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the State of U.P. respondent
no. 1.

5. The respondent Nigam has placed
reliance upon the subsequent amendment
of Section 177 of the Act vide U.P. Extraordinary gazette dated 26.3.1999. Section
177 of the Act is amended vide Section 4
of the amending Act of U.P. Municipal
Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1999.

The amended clause (c) of Section
177 of the Act reads:

"building solely used as jails, court
houses, treasuries and schools and colleges
other than such professional, vocational
technical and medical institutions as are
not run and managed by the Government."

6. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsels for the
respondents.

7. A perusal of the amended clause
(c) leaves no doubt that legislature did not
agree with the view expressed in the
Government
Order
dated
22.7.1998
(Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and hence
the section itself was amended making it
clear that the schools and colleges shall be
exempt from general tax and that only
such professional, vocational, technical
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
100
and medical institutions as are not run and
managed by the Government shall become
liable for making payment of general tax.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioner
also submitted that by the Government
order tax liability could not be imposed by
issuing government order dated 22.7.1998.
The argument has substance and it is
accordingly accepted.

9. In view of the unambiguous
provision of Section 177 of the Act as well
as amended clause (c) of the Section 177
referred to above, we are of the opinion
that no general tax could be imposed upon
the college of the petitioner which is
admittedly
neither
professional
nor
vocational institution.

10. In view of the above the
Government
order
dated
22.7.1998
Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed.
We further issue a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to refund the
amount if any deposited as general tax
under Section 177 of the Act within two
months of production of a certified copy of
this order in accordance with law.

11. The petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+,
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+,

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

6KLY .XPDU
«5HYLVLRQLVW ,Q -DLO
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU«2SS 3DUW\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
6KUL 6& 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH 3DUW\
$*$

&RGH
RI
&ULPLQDO
3URFHGXUH

&KDSWHU ;;; 66
 DQG DQG 66 WR UHDG
ZLWK FRQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH
,OOHJDO
FXVWRG\
ZLWKRXW
DQ\
RUGHU
RI
UHPDQG ± 1R JUDQW RI %DLO +DEHDV &RUSXV
LV SURSHU UHPHG\

+HOG ± 3DUD
, WKHUHIRUH ILQG WKDW QHLWKHU WKH EDLO FDQ
EH JUDQWHG RQ WKH JURXQG WKDW WKHUH LV
LOOHJDO FXVWRG\ QRU EDLO FDQ EH JUDQWHG LQ
UHYLVLRQ
DJDLQVW
LOOHJDO
UHPDQG
7KH
UHPHG\ RSHQ IRU LOOHJDO FXVWRG\ LV WKH ZULW
SHWLWLRQ IRU +DEHDV &RUSXV XQGHU $UWLFOH
 RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD 7KLV
FRXUW ZKLOH H[HUFLVLQJ SRZHU RI UHYLVLRQ
H[FHSW LQ WKH FDVHV ZKHUH WKH UHYLVLRQ
DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU RI VHQWHQFH FDQ QRW
RUGHU IRU UHOHDVH RQ EDLO RI WKH DFFXVHG
7KHUH
DUH
GLIIHUHQW
SURYLVLRQV
RI
EDLO
FRQWDLQHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ WR &U
3&
LQ
ZKLFK
DORQH
WKH
EDLO
FDQ
EH
JUDQWHG
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 6XSS $&&
 $&&
 $&&
 83 &U 5
 &UO /-

By the Court

1. I have heard Sri S.C. Pandey,
Learned counsel for the revisionist and the
learned A.G.A.

2. In this revision various order
which have been passed on the order sheet
adjoining the case no. 1640 of 1999 and
after committal in S.T. No. 171 of 1999,
State versus Shiv Kumar and Six others,
Under Section 498- A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3⁄4