# M•mpn Abdul Karim v. "1· Ciutodla11 G•noral 'WIUIChoo /

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 846
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, J. C. Shah, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAll, s. M. S!KRI
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-mpn-abdul-karim-v-1-ciutodla11-g-noral-wiuichoo-3224
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

.Iqua/ Protection of Lllw......Oeographical clas•ification du• to hiSlorical
ttOIOn.t whethef valid-II upheld-Time-limit for adjustments, .ii
pos1il!le-Difierential trlatment-Mere plea not su/ficient-Coriitlfution oi India, A.rt. 14--Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax A.ct,
!9S3 (Bhopal A.ct 11 of 1953) .
The respondent, a company incorporated in the former State .of.
Bhopal, presented a petition in August 1960 under Art. 226 · of Iha
Constitution "in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ restraini111
the Stale of Madhya Pradesh from enforcing the Bhopal State Agri·
cliltural Income-tax Act, 1953, claiming that the Act contravened Iha
respondent's right under Art. 14 of. the Constitution. lly the Stater
lleorganisation Act, 1956 the territory of tho State of BhOPal ..,.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
incorporated from November I, 1956 into the newly formed State of
1964
Madhya Pradesh. The States Reorganisation Act by s. 119 continued Still
, Mad..__
the operation of the laws in force in the territories in which they were
1 ,.';;,.,ui ~,....
previously in force until the competent legislature or rtuthority amended,
'Y.
altered or modified these laws. Shortly after the reoraanisation. the B/torxll s.,..
Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 was issued so as to
lndiutrln
make certain laws applicable uniformly to the entire State and later
the Lrg:slatnre by the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958
made other alterations in the laws applicable to the State. But llhopal
Act 11 of 1953 remained unamended or unaltered: nor was its Operation
extended to the other areas or regions in the State with the result
that Agrii:ultural lncome-tru< was levied within the territory of tho
former State of Bhopal and not in the rest of the territory of the Stato
of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court held that tho provisions of
Bhopal Act .11 of 1953 contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution and
observed that though the State had removed diversity in some of tho
laws of the component regions, no attempt was made to remove
discrimination between the territory of the former Bhopal
~ltate and
the rest of the territories of the State of Madhya Pradesh with respect
lo this law.
Held: (i) Where application of unequal laws is reasonably ju.•tifietl
for historical reasons, a geographical classification founded on tboso
historical reasons would be upheld. The legislature bas always Ibo
power to make special laws to attain particular objects and
for that
purpose has authority to select or· classify persons, objects or trans.
llClions upon which the law is intended to operate. Differential treaiment becomes unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by
• rational relation with the object of the statute.
Bhaiyalal Shukia v. S!ate of MadhY.a Pradesh, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
257, The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The Gwalior Sugar Co., [1962] 2
S.C.R. 619, Maharaj Kumar Prithivi Raj v. State of Rajasthan, C.A.
Nos.
327-328,
dated 2-11-1960 and
Anand Prasad Lakshminiv.,
Ganeriwal v. State of A1ulhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 853. relied on.
State of Raja1than Y. Rao Manohar Singhji, [1954] S.C.ll. 996,
Kplained.
(ii) It would be impossible to lay down any definite time-limit
within which the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to
olfectuate the equality clause of tho Constitution. It cannot be said
lllat because a certain number of years have elapsed or that tho Stale
llas mallo other laws uniform. tho State has achld improperly in continuing an impost which operates upon.,a class of citizens more barsblJ
lbln upon other..
··
(iii) To make oot a case of denial of the equal protection of lawo.
1111der Art. 14, a plea of differentbl trea!M•nl is by itself not ru111ciont.
An· applicant plcadins sucb denial must make out tbal not on)1 he.·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1116I
bad been treated differently from otbcn but he has been oo treated
.State of Madhya from ~ersons. similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis, and
Ptade1h
i1uzh di

## Text

..
1961
M•mpn
Abdul
Karim
v.
"1·
Ciutodla11
G•noral
'WIUIChoo /.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
that this was a loan and not a deposit, for he never pleaded
at any time before the authorities concerned that even if
it was a deposit the recovery would be barred by time. We
are of opinion that there is force in this contention on
behalf of the respondents and we are not prepared to allow
the appellant to ·raise the questfon whether the recovery
would be barred eve.n if the amount is treated as a deposit.
In this view of the matter, it would · not be necessary to
consider the exact effect of s. 48 ( 3) and to decide whether
it will apply even to cases where the recovery had become
barred under the Limitation Act before October 22, 1956.
We therefore do not allow the appellant to raise the point
that the recovery would be barred even if the amount was
a deposit.
The appeal therefore fails and is hereby clismWed witll
cos ta.
Appeal. dismissed.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. C.
SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAll AND s. M. S!KRI JJ.)
.Iqua/ Protection of Lllw......Oeographical clas•ification du• to hiSlorical
ttOIOn.t whethef valid-II upheld-Time-limit for adjustments, .ii
pos1il!le-Difierential trlatment-Mere plea not su/ficient-Coriitlfution oi India, A.rt. 14--Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax A.ct,
!9S3 (Bhopal A.ct 11 of 1953) .
The respondent, a company incorporated in the former State .of.
Bhopal, presented a petition in August 1960 under Art. 226 · of Iha
Constitution "in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ restraini111
the Stale of Madhya Pradesh from enforcing the Bhopal State Agri·
cliltural Income-tax Act, 1953, claiming that the Act contravened Iha
respondent's right under Art. 14 of. the Constitution. lly the Stater
lleorganisation Act, 1956 the territory of tho State of BhOPal ..,.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
incorporated from November I, 1956 into the newly formed State of
1964
Madhya Pradesh. The States Reorganisation Act by s. 119 continued Still
, Mad..__
the operation of the laws in force in the territories in which they were
1 ,.';;,.,ui ~,....
previously in force until the competent legislature or rtuthority amended,
'Y.
altered or modified these laws. Shortly after the reoraanisation. the B/torxll s.,..
Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 was issued so as to
lndiutrln
make certain laws applicable uniformly to the entire State and later
the Lrg:slatnre by the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958
made other alterations in the laws applicable to the State. But llhopal
Act 11 of 1953 remained unamended or unaltered: nor was its Operation
extended to the other areas or regions in the State with the result
that Agrii:ultural lncome-tru< was levied within the territory of tho
former State of Bhopal and not in the rest of the territory of the Stato
of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court held that tho provisions of
Bhopal Act .11 of 1953 contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution and
observed that though the State had removed diversity in some of tho
laws of the component regions, no attempt was made to remove
discrimination between the territory of the former Bhopal
~ltate and
the rest of the territories of the State of Madhya Pradesh with respect
lo this law.
Held: (i) Where application of unequal laws is reasonably ju.•tifietl
for historical reasons, a geographical classification founded on tboso
historical reasons would be upheld. The legislature bas always Ibo
power to make special laws to attain particular objects and
for that
purpose has authority to select or· classify persons, objects or trans.
llClions upon which the law is intended to operate. Differential treaiment becomes unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by
• rational relation with the object of the statute.
Bhaiyalal Shukia v. S!ate of MadhY.a Pradesh, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
257, The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The Gwalior Sugar Co., [1962] 2
S.C.R. 619, Maharaj Kumar Prithivi Raj v. State of Rajasthan, C.A.
Nos.
327-328,
dated 2-11-1960 and
Anand Prasad Lakshminiv.,
Ganeriwal v. State of A1ulhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 853. relied on.
State of Raja1than Y. Rao Manohar Singhji, [1954] S.C.ll. 996,
Kplained.
(ii) It would be impossible to lay down any definite time-limit
within which the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to
olfectuate the equality clause of tho Constitution. It cannot be said
lllat because a certain number of years have elapsed or that tho Stale
llas mallo other laws uniform. tho State has achld improperly in continuing an impost which operates upon.,a class of citizens more barsblJ
lbln upon other..
··
(iii) To make oot a case of denial of the equal protection of lawo.
1111der Art. 14, a plea of differentbl trea!M•nl is by itself not ru111ciont.
An· applicant plcadins sucb denial must make out tbal not on)1 he.·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1116I
bad been treated differently from otbcn but he has been oo treated
.State of Madhya from ~ersons. similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis, and
Ptade1h
i1uzh differential treatment is unjustifiably rnade.
v.
Ilhopal
,,,,,,,
l "41111ric•
CIVIL APPELLATE JtJRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 491
of 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January I 7,
I 96 I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition
No. 226 of 1960.
B. Sen and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and
Ravinder Nnmi•'l, for the respondent.
February I 9, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was
deliver~d by
SHAH, J.-Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.-hereinafter
called 'the Cornpany'-was incorporated under the Companies Act of the former lndian State of Bhopal. In I 953
the State of Bhopal whkh was then a Part 'C' State under
the Comtitution of India enacted "The Bhopal State
Agricultural Income-tax Act, IX of 1953" providing for
imposition and levy of tax on agricultural income. The Act
was '1pplied to the. territory of the entire State of Bhopal
and was brought into force on July 15, 1953.
By the States Reorganisation Act, I 956 (No. 67 of
1956), territory of the Part 'C' State of Bhopal was incorporated with effect from November l, 1956, into the newly
formed State cf Madhya Pradesh. Section 119 of the States
Reorgani<,ation Act, 1956, enacted that by the constitution
of the reorganized State, no change in the Jaws in force
which immediatelv before November I, 1956, extended or
applied to any · constituent regions, was effected, and
cerritorial references in the laws to an existing State shall,
until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other
competent authority be construed as meaning the territories
within that State immediately before November 1, 1956.
By the Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws (State and
Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956, promulgated by the
I
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Govern~ent of the State, all laws in force in the regions
1~
which were newly incorporated into the reorganised State state of Mad,.,._.
of Madhya Pradesh were, with certain adaptations and
Pradeih
modifications specified in the Order, to remain in force in Bhopal v. s,,,.,
those areas until altered, repealed or amended, and by that
lndrutrln
Order the Bhopal Act IX of 19 5 3 continued to remain
Shah /.
applicable in the territory of the former Bhopal State, in
the new State of Madhya Pradesh.
Later the Legislature
of the Madhya Pradesh State enacted the Madhya Pradesh
Extension of Laws Act, 1958, extending several Acts--
Central as well as State-to the entire territory of the State,
but no alteration was made in the territorial operation of
Bhopal Act IX of 1953. It is common ground that in tbs
remainipg territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh there
was no law providing for levy of tax on agricultural income.
The Company paid and continued to pay tax assessed
under the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953,
till some time in 1960.
On August 4, 1960, the Company
presented a petition undi::r Art. 226 of the Constin1tion m
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for a wrtt
declaring that Bhopal Act IX of 1953 was unconstitutional
and void as being discriminatory and for appropriats
directions, writs or orders restraining the State of Madhya
Pradesh from giving effect to the Act. It was claimed by
the Company that Bhopal Act IX of 1953 deprived the
residents of the territory to which H applied, of the protection
of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court upheld
the plea of the Company and issued a writ restraining the
State of Madhya Pradesh from enforcing the provisions ')f
Bhopal Act IX of 1953, observing that the Act was "in
clear contravention of the petitioner's right under Art. 14
of the Constitution and must be declared void".
Authority of the Part C State of Bhopal to enact tbs
Act, as it originally stood, is not in dispute, nor are tbs
provisions of s. 119 of the Stat'18 Reorganisation Act and
the Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws (State and
Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956, challenged as incompetent.
The plea that there is infringement of Art. 14 of
the Constitution is advanced on the sole ground that in the
reorganiied State of Madhya Pradesh formed under the
134-159 S.C.-54
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64J
fg61
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, agricultural income-tax is
...,. of Madhya levied within the territory of the former State of Bhopal
Pradalt
and not in the rest of the territories of Madhya Pradesh.
llTwpaJ v. Suglll' Prima facie, a differential treatment is accorded by the State
lndrutrl••
of Madhya Pradesh to persons carrying on agricultural
Shall 1.
operations in the Bhopal region, because the State subjects
them to pay tax on agricultural income, which is not
imposed upon agricultural income earned in the rest of the
State. But that by itself cannot be a ground for declaring
the Act ultra vires. The State is undoubtedly enjoined by
Art. 14 of the Constitution not to deny to any person equal
protection of the laws within the territory, but a proper
classification bearing a reasonable and just relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute does not on
that account become impermil>sible.
All persons who are
similarly circumstanced as regards a subject matter are
entitled to equal protection of the laws, but it is not
!Predicated thereby that every law must have universal
application irrespective of dissimilarity of objects or transactions to which it applies, or of the nature or attainments
of the persons to whom it relates.
The Legislature has
always the power to make special laws to attain particular
objects and for that purpose has authority to select or
classify persons, objects or transactions upon which the law
is intended to operate. Differential treatment becomes
unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by a
rational relation with the object of the statute. This Court
has held in several cases, that where application of unequal
laws is reasonably justified for historical reasons, a geographical classification founded on those historical reasons
would be upheld : Bhaiyalal Shukla v. State of Madhya
Pradesh('): The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The Gwalior
Sugar Co. Ltd. and others(2 ): Maharaj Kumar Prithvi Raj
and another v. The State of Rajasthan and others(•) and
Anand Prasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of Andhra
Pradesh( 4 ). The decision of this Court in The State of
Rajasthan v. Rao Manohar Singhji(") does not lay down
(I) [1962] Suppl. 2 S. C. R. 257.
(2) [1962] 2 S. C. R. 619.
(3) C.A. Nos. 327-328 of 1956 decided on Nov. 2, 1960.
(4) AIR 1963 S. C. R53.
(S) [1954] S. C. R. 996.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
851
any contrary principle. In that case the Court accepted that
I91ff
historical reasons may justify differential treatment of Stat< otMad'llY!!i
separate geographical regions provided it bears a reasonable
Prlllluh
and just relation to the matter in respect of which it is Bhopal"· S"IJ"i'
proposed, but the differentiation in that case was regarded
lnd:Lilrll!b
as infringing the equal protection of the laws because
Shah ;.
members of the same class were treated in a manner ex facie
discriminatory, and no attempt was made by the State to
justify the treatment as founded upon a rational basis having
a just relation to the impugned statute.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the various administrative units which existed in British lndia were the result
of acquisition of territory by the East India Company from
time to time. The merger t>f Indian States since 194 7
brought into the Dominion of India numerous Unions or
States, based upon arrangements ad hoc, and the constitutional set up in 1950 ·did not attelllJPt, on account of diverse
reasons mainly political, to make any rational rearrangement of administrative units.
Under the Constitution as
originally promulgated there existed three categories of
States, beside the centrally administered units of the
Andaman and Nicobar islands.
Pa.rt 'A' States were the
former Governors' Provinces, with which were merged
certain territories of the former Indian States to make
geographically homogeneous units : Part 'B' States represented groups formed out of 275 bigger Indian States by
mutual arrangement into Unions : Part 'C' States were the
former Chief Commissioners' Provinces.
These units were
continued under the Constitution merely because they
formerly existed.
Later an attempt was made under the
States Reorganisation Act to rationalize the pattern of
administration by reducing the four classes of units into
two-States, and Union territories-and by making a
majority of the States homogeneous linguistic units.
But
in the States so reorganized were incorporated regions
governed by distinct laws, and by the mere process of
bringing into existence reorganized administrative units,
uniformity of laws could not immediately be secured.
Administrative reorganization evidently could not await
adaptation of laws, so as to make them uniform, and
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1Q64]
1961
immediate abolition of laws which gave distinctive character
"'* ofMadhya to the regions brought into the new units was politically
Pradesh
inexpedient even if theoretically possible.
An attempt to
Bliopa/"· su11ar secure uniformity of laws before reorganisation of the units
Industri••
would also have considerably retarded the process of
Shah J.
reorganisation.
With the object of effectuating a swift
transition, the States Reorganisation Act made a blanket
provision in s. 119 continuing the operation of the laws in
force in the territories in which they were previously in
force notwithstanding the territorial reorganisation into
different administrative units until the qompetent Legislature
or authority amended, altered or modified those laws.
The reorganized State of Madhya Pradesh was formed
by combining territories of four different regions.
Shortly
after reorganisation, the Governor of the State issued the
Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent
Subjects) Order, 1956, so as to make certain Jaws applicable
uniformly to the entire State and later the Legislature by
the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958, made
other alterations in the laws aipplicable to the State.
But
Bhopal Act IX of 1953 remained unamended and unaltered : nor was its operation extended to other areas or regions
in the State. ·Continuance of the laws of the old region
after the reorganisation by s. 119 of the States Reorganisation Act was by itself not discriminatory even though it
resulted in differential treatment of persons, objects and
transactions in the new State, because it was intended to
serve a dual purpose-facilitating the early formation of
homogeneous units in the larger interest of the Union, and
maintaining even while merging its political identity in the
new unit, the distinctive character of each region, till uniformity of laws was secured in those branches in which it was
expedient after ful! enquiry to do so. The laws of the
regions merged in the new units had therefore to be continued on grounds of necessity and expediency. Section 119
of the States Reorganisation Act was intended to serve this
temporary purpose, viz., to enable the new units to consider
the fljlecial circumstances of the diverse units, before launching upon a process of adaptation of laws so as to make
them reasonably uniform, keeping in view the special needs
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
8 53
of the component regions and administrative efficiency.
1964
Differential treatment arising out of the application of the State of Madiry,..
laws so continued in different regions of the same reorgaPraduh
nised State, did not therefore immediately attract the clause Bhopal v. su,..
of the Constitution prohibiting discrimination. But by the
Industri••
passage of time, considerations of necessity and expediency
Shah J.
would be obliterated, and the grounds which justified classification of geographical regions for historical reasons may
cease to be valid.
A purely temporary provision which
because of compelling forces justified differential treatment
when the Reorganisation Act was enacted cannot obviously
be permitted to assume permanency, so as to perpetuate that
treatment without a rational basis to support it after the
initial expediency and necessity have disappeared.
The High Court observed that even though the State
had enacted the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act,
1958, and had removed diversity in some of the laws of
the component regions, no attempt was made to remove
discrimination between the territory of the former Bhopal
State and the rest of the territories of the State of Madhya
Pradesh in the matter ·of levy of agricultural income-tax.
This in the view of the High Court was unlawful because
the State had since the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act sufficient time and opportunity to decide whether
the continuance of the Bhopal State Agricultural Incometax Act in the Bhopal region would be consistent with
Art. 14 of the Constitution. We are unable to agree with
the view of the High Court so expressed.
It would be
impossible to lay down any definite time-limit within which
the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to
effectuate the equality clause of the Constitution. That
initially there was a valid geographical classification of
regions in the same State justifying unequal laws when the
State was formed must be accepted. But whether the
continuance of unequal laws by itself sustained 1the plea of
unlawful discrimination in . view of changed circumstances
could only be ascertained after a full and thorough enquiry
into the continuance of the grounds on which thi: inequality
could rationally be founded, and the change of circumstances, if anv. which obliterated the compulsion of expediency
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64J
~ and necessity existing at the time when the Roorganisation
Stal• of Madhya Act was enacted.
Pradesh
v.
Bhopal
Sugar
lndllllriu
SWJ.
Unfortunately there was no clear perception by the
parties of what has to be pleaded and proved to establish
a plea of denial of equal protection of the laws. The
Company merely assumed that the existence of a law relating
to taxation which imposed agricultural income-tax in the
Bhopal region, there being no similar levy in the rest of
the State, was in law discriminatory.
That is clear from
the petition of the Company which merely asserted that the
Act discriminated between the Company and other ownets .
of sugarcane farms in the State of Madhya Pradesh, because
it singled out the Company and other agriculturists in the
Bhopal region from other agriculturists and sugarcane farm
owners in the State of Madhya Pradesh and subjected them
to liability without any reasonable basis for classification.
The Company therefore baldly submitted that after the
incorporation of the Bhopal region in the reorganised State,
the State of Madhya Pradesh ought to have suitably modified
the Act so as to make it applicable t9 all residents alike
and by allowing the Act to operate without any modification,
the State had violated the fundamental right of the Company
under .Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The State of Madhya
Pradesh did not file any affidavit in reply before the High
Court, and chose to defend the petition as if its decision
depended on a pure question of law, that if for historical
reasons the Act in operation in a region incorporated in
the new State was not discriminatory at the date when the
reorganisation took place, it can never become discriminatory thereafter. The assumptions made by both the parties
appear to be erroneous. The High Court was of the view
that after expiry of a reasonable period during which the
State has the opportunity of making necessary adaptations
so as to make the Act applicable to the entirety of the new
State, if the State fails to adapt the law, historical considerations which initially justified the classification must
be deemed to have disappeared. That assumption without
further enquiry may not be accepted as correct.
It was
necessary for the High Court to investigate whether. at the
date when the petition was filed, special treatment of the
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
855
Bhopal region in the matter of levy of agricultural income1~
tax had a rational basis. That necessitated an enquiry into Stat• of Mall.,._
the structure of tax burden imposed directly or indirectly
Pradalt
Y.
on or in respect of agricultural land or income from it in Blwpol s,,,.,
the different regions constituting the State. If for instance,
Inllllltrl#
on account of disparity in the impost of land revenue and
.fW /.
related taxes on land and income from land in other regions,
the ultimate burden on persons in the Bhopal region who
were subjected to agricultural income-tax and agricultural
land owners in the rest of the State did not disclose a pattern
of wide variations, the mere existence of agricultural income
impost in one region, and absence of such impost in another
region may not necessarily justify an inference of unlawful
discrimination. It was therefore necessary to ascertain the
difference in the overall tax liability between persons similarly situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the matter
of levy of agricultural tax. For that purpose an investigation
was necessary whether the incidence of total burden on
agriculturists was so desparate that an inference of unlawful
discrimination may reasonably be made.
The High Court
had to ascertain the impact of diverse land taxes imposed
on agricultural land in the four regions of the State, and
whether the burden between persons similarly circumstanced
was substantially dissimilar, and whether continuance of
dissimilar levies was justified. If upon a thorough examination of the pattern of land taxes in different regions of the
State, it appeared to the Court that an unreasonably larger
burden was sought to be continued upon this region, without
any apparently justifiable ground, an inference of discrimination may arise.
In adjudging reasonableness of classification for the
purpose of taxation, the Courts recognise greater freedom
in the Legislature and if the statute discloses a permissible
policy of taxation, the Courts will uphold it. The Courts
undoubtedly lean more readily in favour of the presumption
of constitutionality of a taxing statute, but that is not to
say that they will not strike down a statute unless it appears
that the tax was imposed deliberately with the object of
differentiating between persons similarly circumstanced.
We may state that the observations to the contrary that in
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Lr964)
1961
matters of taxation a statute may not be struck down "unless
·'- ofMadh a the Court finds that" the tax "has been imposed with a
. Pradesh
1 deliberate intention of differentiating between individual
•11o,,,,i v. Sugar and individual" in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The
lndrutrlu
Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and another(') was not strictly
Sltah J.
necessary for deciding that case, and was not intended to
lay down any special test applicable to taxing statutes in
their relation to Art. 14 of the Constitution.
To arrive at a conclusion adverse to the State it was
therefore necessary to decide whether the differentiation
arising from the continuation of the levy of the agricultural
income-tax was unfair and not supported by a reasonable
standard, and the State having the requisite information and
opportunity to make the imposts reasonably uniform, had
failed or neglected to do so.
No set formula can be devised
for solving a problem of this character. It cannot be said
that because a · certain number of years have elaipsed or
~at. the State has made other laws uniform, the State has
acted improperly in continuing an impost which operates
upon a class of citizens more harshly than upon others.
The petition filed by the Company was singularly deficient in furnishing particulars which would justify the plea
of infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It cannot
be too strongly emphasized that to make out a case of denial
of. the equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 of the
Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not
sufficient. An applicant pleading that equal protection of
the laws has been denied to him must make out that not
only he had been treated differently from others but he has
been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced
wfihout any reasonable basis, and such differential treatment
iS unjustifiably made. A mere plea that the Company and
other agriculturists within the region of the former Bhopal
State had to pay the agricultural income-tax, whereas the
agriculturists elsewhere had not to pay such tax, is not
sufficient to make out a case of infringement of the fundamental right under Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The State also did not place evidence before the High
Court, which would in the very nature of things be in its
(!) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 619.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
857
possession, showing a rational relation between the differ1964
1ential treatment and the classification and has also not State of Madlqfi,
placed any material before the Court throwing light on the
Pradult
v.
question whether the continuance of the tax was justified : Bhopal
s,,,.,
it merely chose to plead its case as on a demurrer. Both
lndunriu
the State and the Company have by inadequate appreciation
Shah 1.
of the true position in law contributed to the manner in
which the trial of the petition has proceeded.
We would
in the circumstances not be justified in dismissing the peti·
tion on a technical view of the burden of proof. , We think
that this is a case in which the iparties should be given an
opportunity to plead their respective cases adequately and
to go to trial after the requisite evidence which has a bearing
is brought before the Court.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order
and remand the case for retrial to the High Court.
The
High Court, will, if the Company so desires, give oppor·
tunity to the Company to amend its petition .so as to
adequately iplead its case of infringement of the fundamental
right to equal protection of the laws supported by necessary
particulars.
The High Court will also give opportunity to
the State to file its affidavit in reply and to place all such
materials as it may rely upon the plea set up by the Com1>any. After the pleadings are completed and the evidence
is brought on the record, the High Court will proceed to
decide the case according to law.
Costs in this Court will
be the costs in the petition before the High Court.
Appeal allowed.
HUKUMCHAND MILLS LID.
v.
1HE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT AND ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS
GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
fudustrial
Tax-Assessment
under
the
Tax
Rults-A.mendmentYalidity-AsJtnm•nt under the old law if validated by the Yal1datin1 Act-Validating Act if, hit b1 Art. 14-lndore Industrial
T~
1964
February 20'..