# BABU RAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHW ARI v. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAR NAGAR - **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 518 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1968-08-02 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 605 of 1966 - **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswam! A!'Id A. N. Grover - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/babu-ram-prakash-chandra-maheshw-ari-v-antarim-zila-parishad-muzaffar-nagar-4432 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art. 2'26--Altcr11a1ive retncdies 1101 availed of1/i,::h (.'ourt can still rnterrain writ petition and issue writ. of certiorari 'vhere Tribunal has acrt•d on a provision ol law u·hic:h i.<; ulira vircs and where natural ju.Y1ice is denied. The appellant \\'a..; a partncr.;;hip firn1 carrying on the bu..,incss of n1anuB facturing Khandsari Sugar in the District of ~1uzaffarnagar, U.P. Under C s. l 14 of the U.P. l)L~lrict Ho:1nt.; Act X of 1922 .1 Oi_c;lric1 Board had J>Q\\'cr to levy a taX on circumstances and propcrtv suhjcct 10 certain conditions and restrictions. ll1c pov:crs of Dio;tnct Board..;, under the aforesaid Act \\'Crc by virtue of the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958 conferred on the Parishads formed under the latter Act. The U.P. Anlarim Zila Parishad Act 1958 expired on 31st December. 1959 but its life was extended to 3 lst December. 1960 bv .<\menclin~ Act No 1 of 1960 \vhich rccei\'ed the aS-"iCnt of the G0vemor on Januarv 5, 1960. \Vhcn the taxing olliccr of the Antarim Zila PQ\\'cr to levy a taX on circumstances and propcrtv suhjcct 10 certain conditions and restrictions. ll1c pov:crs of Dio;tnct Board..;, under the aforesaid Act \\'Crc by virtue of the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958 conferred on the Parishads formed under the latter Act. The U.P. Anlarim Zila Parishad Act 1958 expired on 31st December. 1959 but its life was extended to 3 lst December. 1960 bv .<\menclin~ Act No 1 of 1960 \vhich rccei\'ed the aS-"iCnt of the G0vemor on Januarv 5, 1960. \Vhcn the taxing olliccr of the Antarim Zila Pt been exercised in accordance with law. [523 C-524 Al CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 605 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 27, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 322 of 1964. E. C. Agarwala and E. Udayarathnam, for the appellant., M. C. Chagla and P. C. Agrawala, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The appellant is a partnership firm consisting of two brothers Lala Baburam and Shri Prakash Chandra, carrying on the business of manufacturing Khandsari sugar in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The partnership firm carries O]l its business through its two units (1) one located in the village Basera and run under the name and style of M/s. Baburam Ashok Kumar and (2) the other located in village Morna and run under the name and style of M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra, both in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The case of the appellant was that the business of manufacturing Khandsari was seasonal and was carried on at both the places for less than 5 months in a year, i.e., from the month of November to the beginning of April. Under the U.P. District Boards Act No. X of 1922, the District Board of Muzaffarnagar was empowered to levy tax under ss. 108 and 114 in the rural area. Section 114 was to the following effect : "The power of a board to impose a tax on circumstances and property shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions namely :- (a) The tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1969) I s.C.R. total period of at least six months in the year under A assessment. (b) The total amount of tax imposed on any person shall not exceed such maximum (if any) as may be prescribed by rule. " ........................................ Under s. 123 of that Act the matters relating to the assessment and collection of taxes were to be governed by rules framed under s. 172 of that Act. On March I, 1928, the Government of U.P. issued notification no. 315/IX-413 notiiying the rules for the rules for the assessment and collection of a tax on circumstances and property in the rural area of the M u1.affarnagar district. The rules provided, among other matters, that all the activities of an assesi;ee within the district, wl~~ther carried on under the same or different name, shall be considered in calculating the total amount to be assessed; and the tax shall be assessed by an Assessing Officer appointed by the District Board. and the list of assessment of the preceding year ending December 31, shall be completed on or before January 20, :md shall be submitted to the Board which will return it by February 15 to the Assessing Officer for being revised and thereafter the Assessing Officer shall give notice of a date not less than one month when he will proceed to consider the objection. The assesscc may file objections before the date fixed and thereafter the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Rule 16 read with Rule 2 fixed the maximum limit of the total amount of tax assessed on any person not to exceed Rs. 2,000/- in any year, having regard to all the activities of an assessee within the district whether carried ·on under the same or a different name. In the year 1950 the Constitution of India was promulgated and under cl. 2 of Art. 276 the total amount payable in respect of any one person to the district board, local Board or other local authority in the State by way of taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments shall not exceed two hundred and fifty rupeei; per annum. On August 22. 1958, the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act of 1958 (U.P. Act no. XXII of 1958) passed by the U.P. Legislature received the assent of the Governor and was published in the U.P. Ga7.ette dated August 23, 1958. Clause (3) of s. 1 of the U. P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958 runs as follows:- "It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 29th day of April, 1958, and shall expire on the 31st day of December, 1959." c I> E F G But the Amending Act (U.P. Act no. I of 1960) received the H assent of the Governor on January 5, 1960 whereby the figure 1960 was substituted in place of 1959 in cl. (3) of s. I of U.P. Act XXJI of 1958. The case of the appellant is that the original A B - c D E F G H BABU RAM v. ZILA PARISHAD (Ramaswami, I.) 521 Act no. XXII of 1958 had expired on December 31, 1959 and, as such could not be revived on January 5, 1960 when the Amending Act no. 1 of 1960 received the assent of the Governor and that fresh legislation was necessary. On March 20, 1960, a copy of the Assessment Order assessing the appellant to the maximum amount of Rs. 2,000/- as circumstances and property tax for the assessment year 1959-60 was issued by the Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar. The assessment order was issued by Shri 0. P. Varma purporting to act as a Taxing Officer of the Antarim Zila Parishad. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appell~t filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no. 1780 of 1960 m the Allahabad High Court challenging the authority of the respondent Antarim Zila Parishad to impose the tax and praying for the grant of a writ to quash the said assessment order. The writ petition was summarily dismissed on July 21, 1960 by Jagdish Sahai, J. on a preliminary point that the appellant had a right to appeal to the prescribed authority under s. 128 of U.P. Act no. X of 1922. The appellant thereafter preferred a Special Appeal no. 452 of 1960 in the Allahabad High Court against the order of Jagdish Sahai, J. which was also dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal. During the pendency of the Special Appeal no. 452 of 1960, another new Act, namely the U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam of 1961 (i.e., the U.P. Act no. XXXIl of 196l)_was passed by the U.P. Legislature and on November 29, 1961 received the assent of the President of India. The case of the appellant is that on January 15, 1962, without giving any notice or inviting any objections, the Taxing Officer Shri 0. P. Verma passed the assessment order for 1961-62 in respect of the circumstances and prop'erty tax regarding the Basera Unit. Being aggrieved by the two separate assessment orders of Rs. 2000 / - each in respect of the two units of Morana and Basera for the years 1961-62, the appellant filed again in the Allahabad High Oourt a writ petition no. 2371 of 1962 under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was summarily dismissed by S. N. Dwivedi, J. on February 13, 1964. The appellant took the matter in appeal in Special Appel no. 322 of 1964 but the Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on March 27, 1964 on the ground that the appellant had not availed himself of the alternative remedy by way of appeal. The present appeal is brought to this Court by special leave from the judgment of the Division Bench of the A1lahabad High Court dated March 27, 1964 in Special Appeal no. 322 of 1964. The sole argument presented on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court was in error in holding that an appeal under the U.P. District Boards Act no. X of 1922 was an adequate and efficacious remedy and that the appellant should have exhausted· the statutory remedy before applying for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 1969] I S.C.R. lt is a wdl-establishcd proposition of law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy docs not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. Rut, as observed by this Court in Rashid Ahmed v. The Municipal Board. Kairana('), "the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of gr~nting writs" and whCTc such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there arc good grounds therefor. But it should be remembered that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted is a rule of self imposed limitation. a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a rule of law and the court may therefore in exceptional cases issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted. In The State of VIiar Pradesh v. Moharnmad Noah('), S. R. Das, C.J.. speaking for the Court. observed : •·Jn the next place it must he home in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus. that it will lie onlv where there is no other equally effective remedy. 1t' is well cstahlished that. provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred hy statute. (Halshury's Laws of En~Jand. 3rd Ed., Vol. II. p. 130 and the cases c;hi there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and adequate remedy may he taken into consideration hy the superior court in arriving at a conclusion a~ •n whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the nrocccdings and dcci