1961 (4) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeal, upholds notice validity & magistrate's competency under relevant sections. Appeal & costs recovery affirmed.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under Section 153, the recovery of costs under Section 222(4), and the competency of ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notice under Section 153 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925.2. Recovery of costs under Section 222(4) of the Regulation.3. Competency of the Magistrate under Section 234 of the Regulation.4. Availability of an appeal under Section 93 of the Regulation.5. Nature of proceedings under Section 234 and the status of the Magistrate.6. Competency of the proceedings under Section 234 due to the absence of prescribed rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notice under Section 153:The Municipal Committee, Ajmer, issued a notice to the appellant under Section 153 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925, requiring repairs to the Jhalra Wall. The appellant failed to comply, leading to further notices and actions by the Municipal Committee. The appellant argued that the notice was invalid or frivolous, but this contention was not upheld.2. Recovery of Costs under Section 222(4):After the appellant failed to carry out the repairs, the Municipal Committee undertook the repairs and incurred costs amounting to Rs. 17,414. Under Section 222(4), this amount became recoverable as a tax. The appellant challenged the amount, arguing it was excessive. However, the court noted that Section 222(4) allows the recovery of costs as if it were a tax levied by the Committee.3. Competency of the Magistrate under Section 234:The appellant questioned whether the Magistrate who entertained the application under Section 234 was an inferior criminal court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court examined the nature of the proceedings and concluded that the Magistrate acts as a persona designata and not as an inferior criminal court. Therefore, the criminal revision application filed by the appellant was deemed incompetent.4. Availability of an Appeal under Section 93:The appellant argued that there was no opportunity to challenge the validity of the notice or the amount claimed except in proceedings under Section 234. The court disagreed, stating that Section 93 provides for appeals against the levy of any tax, including amounts recoverable under Section 222(4). Section 226 further supports this by suspending enforcement proceedings pending an appeal. Thus, an appeal under Section 93(1) was available to the appellant.5. Nature of Proceedings under Section 234 and Status of the Magistrate:The court held that proceedings under Section 234 are primarily recovery proceedings and are ministerial rather than judicial. The Magistrate's role is to facilitate the recovery of the tax by distress and sale of movable property. Therefore, the Magistrate cannot be considered an inferior criminal court. The proceedings are of a civil nature, and the Magistrate acts as a designated authority rather than under the Code of Criminal Procedure.6. Competency of Proceedings under Section 234 due to Absence of Prescribed Rules:The appellant contended that no demand was made in the manner prescribed by rule, as required by Section 234, because no rules had been framed. The court rejected this argument, stating that the absence of prescribed rules does not render the statutory power to make a demand unenforceable. The Municipal Committee was entitled to make the necessary repairs and demand reimbursement, and the application under Section 234 was competent.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under Section 153, the recovery of costs under Section 222(4), and the competency of the Magistrate under Section 234. The court also affirmed that an appeal under Section 93 was available and that proceedings under Section 234 are of a civil nature, with the Magistrate acting as a designated authority. The absence of prescribed rules did not affect the competency of the proceedings.