# Dr. N. B. Khart v. T ht St alt of Delhi - **Citation:** [1950] 1 S.C.R. 519 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1949-03-29 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-n-b-khart-v-t-ht-st-alt-of-delhi-135 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519 Even assuming for argument's sake that we have got jurisdiction under article 136, the exercise of which would ,depend upon the circumstances of each case, in view of the reasons which we have set out above, this is not · an appeal which, in our opinion, should be a9mitted even if we have the power to do so. -The result is that tlie preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal fails and dismissed with costs. 1950 Bharat Bank Ltd v. Employeu •f Bharat Bllllk PATANJALI SASTRI J.-1 entirely agree with the PAiar!iali Sa11ri, judgment just now delivered by Mukherjea J. and I have oothing to add. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: Ganpat Rai for Tanubhai C. Desai. Agent for the respondents : R. R. Biswas. Agent for the Union of India: P. A. Mehta. DR. N. B. KHARE fl. THE STATE OF DELHI , SHRI HARILAL KANIA C. J., SAIYID FAZL Au, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, ' and MuKHERJEA, JJ.] Constitution of India, Art 19, els. (1) (d) and (5)-Fundamental rights-Freedom of movement-Law imposing restrictionsV alidity -Reasonableness of restrictions-Scope of enquiry-East P11n1ab Public Safety Act, 1949, s. 4(1) (c), (3), (6)-Provisions empowering Provincial Government or District Magistrate to extern persons· mqking satisfaction of externing authority final, authorising e:rternment for indefinite period, and directing that authority "may communicate" grounds of e:rternment-Whether reasonable-Construction and Validity of Act. 1950 May 26. 1950 Dr. N. B. Khart v. T ht St alt of Delhi 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950) Section 4, sub-s. (I) (c), of the East Punjab Public Safety Act of 1949 which was passed on the 29th March, 1949, and was to be in force until the 14th August, 1951, provided that ''The Provincial Government or the District Mag.lstratC. if satisfied \Vith respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing hirn from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order it is necessary to do so, 1nay, by order in writing, give a direction that such person shall rcn1ove himself fron1, and shall not return to, any area that 1nay oe specified in the order." Sub-section (3) of s. 4 provided that "an order under sub-s. (I) made by the District Magistrate shall not, unless the Provincial Government by special order othe,wise directs, remain in force for more than three months fron1 the n1aking thereof," and sub-s. ( 6) laid down that "when an order has been macle in respect of any person under any of the clauses under s. 4, sub-s. (!) or sub-s. (2), the grounds of it may be communicated to him by the authority making the order, and in any case when the order is to be in force tor more than three months, he shall have a right of maki1'.g a representation which shall be referred to the Advisory Tribunal constituted under s. 3, sub·s. ( 4) ." ·The petitioner, against whom an order under s. 4 (I) ( c) of the Act was passed applied to the Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of cn·tiorari contending that the order was illegal inasmuch as the provisions of t_he above· mentioned Act under wliich the order was made infringed the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India which was guaranteed by Art. 19 (I) (d) of the Constitution and were accordingly void under Art. 13 (I) of the Constitution : Held, per KANIA C. J., FAzL ALI and PATANJALI SAsTRI, JJ- (MAHAJAN and MuKHERJEA, JJ. dissenting)-(i) that there was nothing unreasonable in the provision contained in sub-s. (I) (c) of s. 4 empowering the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate to make an extcrnment order, and making their satisfaction as to the necessity of making such an order final, or in the provisions contained in sub-s. ( 3) of s. 4 that an order of a District Magistrate may remain in force for three months and that the Provincial Government may make an order, or keep alive an order made by a District Magistrate, for a period exceeding three month ## Text _Characters 0–39,972 of 40,341. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519 Even assuming for argument's sake that we have got jurisdiction under article 136, the exercise of which would ,depend upon the circumstances of each case, in view of the reasons which we have set out above, this is not · an appeal which, in our opinion, should be a9mitted even if we have the power to do so. -The result is that tlie preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal fails and dismissed with costs. 1950 Bharat Bank Ltd v. Employeu •f Bharat Bllllk PATANJALI SASTRI J.-1 entirely agree with the PAiar!iali Sa11ri, judgment just now delivered by Mukherjea J. and I have oothing to add. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: Ganpat Rai for Tanubhai C. Desai. Agent for the respondents : R. R. Biswas. Agent for the Union of India: P. A. Mehta. DR. N. B. KHARE fl. THE STATE OF DELHI , SHRI HARILAL KANIA C. J., SAIYID FAZL Au, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, ' and MuKHERJEA, JJ.] Constitution of India, Art 19, els. (1) (d) and (5)-Fundamental rights-Freedom of movement-Law imposing restrictionsV alidity -Reasonableness of restrictions-Scope of enquiry-East P11n1ab Public Safety Act, 1949, s. 4(1) (c), (3), (6)-Provisions empowering Provincial Government or District Magistrate to extern persons· mqking satisfaction of externing authority final, authorising e:rternment for indefinite period, and directing that authority "may communicate" grounds of e:rternment-Whether reasonable-Construction and Validity of Act. 1950 May 26. 1950 Dr. N. B. Khart v. T ht St alt of Delhi 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950) Section 4, sub-s. (I) (c), of the East Punjab Public Safety Act of 1949 which was passed on the 29th March, 1949, and was to be in force until the 14th August, 1951, provided that ''The Provincial Government or the District Mag.lstratC. if satisfied \Vith respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing hirn from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order it is necessary to do so, 1nay, by order in writing, give a direction that such person shall rcn1ove himself fron1, and shall not return to, any area that 1nay oe specified in the order." Sub-section (3) of s. 4 provided that "an order under sub-s. (I) made by the District Magistrate shall not, unless the Provincial Government by special order othe,wise directs, remain in force for more than three months fron1 the n1aking thereof," and sub-s. ( 6) laid down that "when an order has been macle in respect of any person under any of the clauses under s. 4, sub-s. (!) or sub-s. (2), the grounds of it may be communicated to him by the authority making the order, and in any case when the order is to be in force tor more than three months, he shall have a right of maki1'.g a representation which shall be referred to the Advisory Tribunal constituted under s. 3, sub·s. ( 4) ." ·The petitioner, against whom an order under s. 4 (I) ( c) of the Act was passed applied to the Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of cn·tiorari contending that the order was illegal inasmuch as the provisions of t_he above· mentioned Act under wliich the order was made infringed the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India which was guaranteed by Art. 19 (I) (d) of the Constitution and were accordingly void under Art. 13 (I) of the Constitution : Held, per KANIA C. J., FAzL ALI and PATANJALI SAsTRI, JJ- (MAHAJAN and MuKHERJEA, JJ. dissenting)-(i) that there was nothing unreasonable in the provision contained in sub-s. (I) (c) of s. 4 empowering the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate to make an extcrnment order, and making their satisfaction as to the necessity of making such an order final, or in the provisions contained in sub-s. ( 3) of s. 4 that an order of a District Magistrate may remain in force for three months and that the Provincial Government may make an order, or keep alive an order made by a District Magistrate, for a period exceeding three months without fixing any time limit; (ii) with regard to stJb-s. ( 6), the word "may" in the expression "may communicate" must, in the context, be read as meaning "shall" and under the sub~scction it is obligatory on the authority making an order to communicate the grounds to the externec; (iii) the restrictions imposed by the above-mentioned. provisions of the Act upon the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. (19) (!) (d) were not, therefore, unreasonable restrictions within the meaning of Art. 19 (5) and the provisions of the Act were not void under Art. 13 (I ), and the order of externment was not illegal. Per MuKHERJEA J. (MlliAJAN J. concurring)-Though cercain authorities can be ·invested with power· to make S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 521 initial orders on their own satisfaction in cases of this descrip1950 tion, and s. 4 ( 1) ( c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act cannot be pronounced. to be unreasonable simply because an order Dr. N. B. Khm• could be passed by the Provincial Government or the District v. Magistrate on their own personal satisfaction and not on The State of Delh7 materials, which satisfy certain objective' tests, yet, the position would be different if the order thus made is allowed to continue for any indefinite period of time without giving the aggrieved person an opp restricted, the same is also for the consideration of the Court, as it has to determine if the exercise of the right has been reasonably restricted. I do not think by this interpretation the scope and ambit of the word "reasonable" as applied to restrictions on the exercise of the right, is in any way unjustifiably enlarged. It seems that the narrow construction sought to be put on the expression, to restrict the Court's power to consider only the substantive law on the point, is not correct. In my opinion this ospect of tlie construction of article 19 (5) has escaped the minority judgment in the two matters mentioned above. I am. not concerned with the conclusions of the two Courts about the invalidity of the provisions of the Acts they were asked to consider. To the extent they help in the interpretation of article 19 (5) only they are helpful. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 525 The next question is whether the impugned Act contains reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rigbt given under article 19 (1) (d) or (e). Itwas argiied on behalf of the petitioner that under sec· tion 4- the power to make the order of extern .. ment was given to the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate, whose satisfaction was final. That decision was not open to review by the Court. On that ground it was contended that there was an un· reasonable restriction on the exercise of the citizen's right. In my opinion, this argument is unsound. This is not legislative delegation. The desirability of passing an individual order of externment against a citizen · has to be left to an officer. In the Act such a provision cannot be made. - The satisfaction of the officer Jhus does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of the citizen's right. So far as f4e Bombay Highl Court is concerned Chagla C. J. appears to have decided this point against the contention of the petitioner.· It was next urged that under section 4 (3) the order made by the District Magistrate shall not, unless the Proviricial Government by special order otherwise direct, remain in force for more than three months. It was argued that the period of three months itself was unreasonable as the externee · had no remedy during that time. [ - It was contended that when the Provincial Governmefit directed the renewal ·of the order no limit of time was prescribed by. the legislature for the duration of the order. The order therefore can· be in operation for ari indefinite period. This was argued to be an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of a citizen's right. In this connection it may be pointed out that in respect of preventive detention, which is a more severe rest~iction on the right of the citizen, the Constitution itself under article 22 (4) to (7) permits preventive detention for three months without any remedy. The period of three months therefore prim a f acie does not appear unreasonable. Under the proviso to section 4 (5) the Provincial Government is not permitted to direct the exclusion or removal from the Province of a person ordinarily residing in the Province, and similarly 1950 Dr. N. B. Khare v. The State of Dtilii Kania C.J. 1950 Dr. N. B. Khare Y. The Stak of Dllhi Kania C.]. 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] the District Magistrate is not permitted to order the exclusion or removal of a person ordinarily resident in his district from that district. This is a great safeguard provided under the East Punjab Public Safety Act. The further extension of the exter1.1ment order beyond three months may be for an indefinite period, but in that connection the fact that the whole Act is to remain in force only up to the 14th August, 1951, cannot be overlooked. Moreover, . this whole argument is based on the assumption that the Provincial Government when making the order will not pe,form its duty and may abuse the provisions of the sect10n. In my opinion, it is improper to start with such an assumption and decide the legality of an Act on that basis. Abuse of the power given by a law. sometimes occurs ; but the validity of the law cannot be contested because of such an apprehension. In my opinion, therefore, this contention of .the petitioner cannot be accepted. It "was next argued that there is no provision in the Act for furnishing grounds of externment to the citizen. Section 4 (6) provides that when an externment order has been made its grounds may be communicated to the externee by the authority making the order and in any case when the order is to be enforced for more than three months he shall have a right of making a representation which shall be referred to the advisory tribunal constituted under section 3 ( 4). While the word "may" ordinarily conveys the idea of a discretion and not compulsion, reading it with the last part of the clause it seems that when an externment order has to be enforced for more than three months an absolute right is given to the externee to make a representation. He cannot make a representation unless he has been furnished grounds for the order. In no other part of the Act a right to obtain the grounds for the order in such a case is given to him. Therefore, that right has to be read as given under the first part of section 4 (6). That can be done only by reading the word "may" for that purpose as having the meaning of "shall". If the word "may" has to be so read for that purpose, it appears to be against the well-recognised canons of construction to s~c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS read the same "may" as having a different meaning when the order is to be in force for less than three months. I do not think in putting the meaning of "shall" on "may" in the clause, I am unduly strainc ing . the language used in the clause. ·So read this argument must fail. It was next argued that there is no provision in the Act showing what the advisory board has to do when it receives a representation. A reference to the advisory board necessarily implies a consideration of the case by s1,1ch board. The absence of an express statement to that effect in the impugned act does not invalidate the Act. It was finally contended on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds for the externment 011der supplied to him are vague, insufficient and incomplete. The grounds are stated as follows :- "Your activities generally and particularly . since the recent trouble in East and West Bengal have been of a communal nature tending to excite hatred between communities and whereas in the present composition of .the population of Delhi and the recent communal disturbances of Delhi feelings are roused be.tween the majority and minority communities your presence and activities in Delhi are likely to prove prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, it is considered necessary to order you to leave Delhi. These grounds cannot be described as vague, insufficient or incomplete. It is expressly stated that the ·activities of the petitioner, who is the President of the Hindu Mahasabha, since the recent disturbances between two communities in the East and West Bengal have particularly been of a communal riature which excites hatred between the communities. It is ~rther stated that having regard to the recent disturbance· in Delhi, the population of which is composed of both these communities, the excitement of such hatred . is likely to be dangerous to the peace and· maintenance of law and order. Apart from. being vague, I think that these grounds are specific and if honestly believed can support the order. The argument that lhe order 1950 Dr. Jt. B. Kht11tK•aC.J. 1950 Dr. N. B. n.,., v. Th• SlaJt of DI/hi XatriaC.J. Fazl Ali]. Patmfiali SGltri]. Mulart III of the Constitution. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 531 It has been urged, though somewhat faintly, by the learned Attorney-General that the; right of free movement throughout the Indian territory as enunciated in article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution contemplates nothing else but absence of inter-State restrictions, which might prevent citizens of the Indian Union from moving from one State to another. A law which does not impose barriers of this kind, it is said, cannot be inconsistent with the fundamental right secured by this clause. Such a restricted interpretation is, in my opinion, not at all warranted by the language of the sub-clause. What article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution guarantees is the free right of all citizens to go wherever they like in the Indian territocywithout any kind of restriction whatsoever. They can move not merely from one State to another but from one place to another within the same State ind what the Constitution lays stress upon is that the entire Indian territory is one unit so far as the citizens arc concerned. Clause (c) of section 4 (1) of the Eaet Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, authorises the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate to direct any person to remo\'e himself from any area and prohibit him from entering the same. On the face of it such provision represents an · interference with the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution. The controversy, therefore, narrows down to this, whether the impugned legislation is saved by reason of its being within the permissible limits prescribed by clause (5) of article 19 .. With regard to clause (5), the learned AttorneyGeneral points out at the outset that the word "reasonable" occurring in the clause qualifies "restrictions" and not "law". It is argued that in applying the clause,. all that we haye to see is whether 'the restrictions that are imposed upon the exercise of the right by law are reasonable or not and we have not to enquire into the reason;ibleness or otherwise of the law itself. The reasonableness of the restrictions can be judged, according to the learned Attorney-General from the nature of the restrictions themselves and not from the manner in which or the authorities by which they are 2-5 S.C. Indiil (N.D.)(~ 195ct Dr. J'{. JJ. KIJMr v. T& Siau of Delhi M~herjea]. 1950 Dr. N. B. Khare v. Tiu State of Delhi Muti...jea J. 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1950] imposed. The question whether the operation of the law produces hardship in individual cases is also a matter which is quite irrelevant to our enquiry. I do agree that in clause (5) the adjective 'reasonable' is predicated of the restrictions that are imposed by law and not of the law itself ; but that does not mean that in deciding the reasonableness or otherwise of the restrictions, we have to confine ourselves to an examination of t'he restrictions in the abstract with reference merely to their duration or territorial extent, and that it is beyond our province to look up to the circumstances under which or the manner in whicl\ the n;strictions have been imposed. It is not possible to formulate an effective test which would enable us to pronounce any particular restriction to be reasonable or unreasonable per se. All the attendant circumstances must be taken into consideration and one cannot dissociate the actual contents of the restnct1ons from the manner of their imposition or the mode of 1ft1tting them into practice. The question of reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by. a law may arise as much from the substantive part of the law as from its procedural portion. Thus, although I agree with the learned Attorney-General that the word "reasonable" in clause (5) of article 19 goes with "restrictions" and not with "law", I cannot accept his suggestion as regards the proper way of determining the reasonableness of the restrictions which a legislation might impose upon the exercise of the right of free movement. Coming now to the provisions of the impugned Act, Mr. Banerjee's main contention is that section 4 (1) (c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, which provides for passing of orders removing a person from a particular area, on the satisfaction of the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate, cannot be a reasonable piece of legislation inasmuch as the only pre-requisite for imposition of the restrictions is the personal satisfaction of ·certain individuals or authorities, the propriety or reasonableness of which cannot be tested by the application of any external rule or standard. It is said that any law which places the liberty S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 533 of a subject at the mercy of an executive officer, however high placed he might be and whose action 'Cannot be reviewed by a judicial tribunal, is an arbitrary and not a reasonable exercise of legislative powers. The contention requires careful examination. It is not disputed that under clause (5) of article 19, the reasonableness · of a challenged legislation has to be determined by a Court and the Court decides such matters by applying some objective standard which is said to be the standard of an average prudent man. Judged by such standard which is sometimes described as an external yard-stick, the vesting of authority in particular officers to take prompt action under emergent circumstances, entirely on their own responsibility or personal satisfaction, is not necessarily unreasonable. One has to take into account the whole scheme of the legislation and the circumstances under which the restrictive orders could be made. The object of the East Punjab Public Safety Act is to provide for special measures to ensure public safety . and maintenance of public order. Under section 4 (1) (c) of the Act, the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate may make an order directing the removal of a certain person from a particular area, if they are satisfied that such order is necessary to prevent such person from acting in any way prejudicial to public safety . or maintenance of public order. Preventive orders by their very nature cannot be made after any judicial enquiry or trial. · If emergent steps have got to be taken to prevent apprehended acts which are likely to jeopardise the interests or safety of the public, somebody must be given the power of taking the initial · steps ori his own responsibility ; and no reasonable objection could be taken if the authority, whp is given the power; is also entrusted with the responsibility of iμaintaining order and public-. peace in any particular district or province. The preventive provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code· are based on similar principle. In my opinion, therefore, the provision of section 4 ( 1) (c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act cannot be pronounced . to be um:easonable, simply because the order could be passed by the Provincial Government 1950 Dr. N. B. Khan v. The Stau of Delhi l'rfukknjeaJ. 1950 Dr. N. B. Khar• v. Tiu Stall of Delhi 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] or the District Magistrate on their own personal satisfaction and not on materials which satisfy certain objective tests. But though certain authorities can be invested with powers to make the initial orders on their own satisfaction in cases of this description, the position would certainly be different if the order thus made is allowed to continue for any indefinite period of time without giving the aggrieved person an opportunity to say what he has got to say against the order. I have already set out the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4 which deals with duration of the orders made under the various clauses of sub-section (1). It will be seen from this sub-section that there is absolutely no limit as to the period of time during which an externment order would remain in force if the 9rder is made by the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government has been given unlimited authority in this respect and they can keep the order in force as long as they chose to do so. As regards orders made by a District Magistrate, the period indeed has been fixed at three months; but Cllen here the Provincial Government is competent to extend it to any length of time by means of a special order. The law does not fix an¥ maximum period beyond which the order cannot continue ; and the fact that the Act itself would expire in August, 1951, is, in my op1ruon, not a relevant matter for consideration in this connection at all. I have no hesi(lltion in holding that the provision of sub-section (3) of section 4 is manifestly unreasonable and cannot be supportc:d on . any just ground. One could understand that . the exigencies of circumstances might justify. the vesting of plenary powers on certain authorities which could pass -0rders on their own personal satisfaction temporarily and for a short period of time; but if these orders are to continue indefinitely, it is only fair that an opportunity should be given to the person against whom such order is made to say what he has to say in answer to the allegations made against him. There may riot be an investigation by a regular Court but it is necessary that the aggrieved person should be given a fair hearing and that by an s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 535 impartial tribunal. The provision of the · impugned Act which has bearing on this point is contained" in sub-sectioh (6) of section 4 and it runs as follows : "When an order has been made in respect of any person under any of the clauses under section 4, sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) the grounds of it may be communicated to him by the authority making the order and in any case, when the order is to be in force for more than three months, he shall have a right of making a representation which shall be referred to the Advisory Tribunal, constituted under section 3, sub-section ( 4) ," It will be noted that the first part of the subsection ·makes it entirely optional with the authorities to communicate the grounds, upon which the order is made, to the person affected by it. The grounds need not be communicated at all if the authorities so desire. As regards the right of representation the latter part of the sub-section seems to imply that when the order is to remain in force for more than three months, the right of representation should be given to the aggrieved person and the representation shall be referred for ·consideration to the advisory tribunal constituted under section 3, sub-section ( 4), of the Act. The right, however, is purely illusory as would appear from the fact that even in cases where the order is to be operative for more than three . months, there is no obligation on the part of the authorities ~o communicate to _ the person the grounds upon which the order was made. The aggrieved person consequently may not at all be apprised of the allegations made against him and it will be impossible for him to make any adequate or proper representation, if he is not told on what grounds the order was passed. In my opinion, this is an equally unreasonable provision and neither sub-section (3) nor sub-section (6) of. section 4 of the Act · can be said to have imposed restrictions which are reasoriable in the interests of the general public. My conclusion, therefore, is that under article 13 ( 1) of the Indian. Constitution, these provisions of the Act became void and inoperative after the Constitution came into 1950 Dr. N. B. Khare .v. The State of Delhi Mukherjea ]. 1950 Dr.N.B. Khare v. The Stale of Delhi Mukhnjea]. 1950 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19501 force, and consequently the order made by the District Magistrate in the present case cannot stand. I would, therefore, allow the application and quash the externment order that has been passed against the petitioner. Petition dismissed. Agent for the petitioner: Gan pat Rai. Agent for the opposite party: P. A. Mehta. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS ti. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. [SHR1 HARILAL KANg C. J., SAIYID FAzL Au, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and MUKHERJEA J J.) Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), ss. 57, 59 (2)-Reference lo High Court-Nature of power .to refer-Duty to refer on reque.11 of party affected-Order directing Chief Controlling Authority to refer-Whether "matter concerning revenues"-furisdiction of Original Side of High Court-Government of India Act, 1935, s. 266(1). The power conferred on the Chief Revenue Authority by Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, to make a reference to the High Court is not intended for the benefit of the Revenue Authority alone, but ensures, also for the benefit of the party affected by the assessment.