NAME: THERESA CHARLES

REG NO : 20113169
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
___________________________________________________________________________________

SONIK INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY

______________________________________________________________________________

CASE NAME SONIK INDUSTRIES, RAJKOT VS MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION OF THE CITY
COURT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH PATHAK, RS
AUTHOR JUSTICE PATHAK
CITATION 1986 AIR 1518, 1986 SCR (2) 59
DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/04/1986

FACTS OF THE CASE

● Draft rules to levy rates on buildings and lands in Rajkot was framed by Rajkot Borough
Muncipality, the same was published and objections were invited and the rules were
sanctioned by the State government.
● By virtue of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 a notice was published in Jai
Hind, Gujrati newspaper published from rajkot under section 77. The following notice
was adopted and applied to the Sanrshtra area of gujrat. The following notice was
applicable to individuals holding lands and buildings or other movable buildings within
the municipal limits of Rajkot.
● The appellant who is a partnership firm initiated a suit in the court of Civil judge, senior
bench, Rajkot, declaring that the Rules sanctioned were invalid and claimed that
assessment list and related notices were without authority of law.
● The trial court granted declaration and. Injunction prayed for and decree was passed. An
appeal against the decree of trial court was dismissed by extra assistant judge Rajkot.
● A Second appeal was filed with the Municipal Borough of Rajkot in the High Court, the
same matter was referred to a larger bench. The learned judges held that in their opinion
the conditions under section77 were fulfilled in the case and the sent was sent back to
dispose the case in accordance with law.
● Thus an appeal by filed in the Supreme Court by virtue of Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the courts below had erred in striking down the rules on the ground that they had not
been published as required by s.77 of the Act?
Whether the rules laid down by the Municipal Borough, Rajkot would be considered valid?

LAWS
Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, section 77, Section 77 provides the final stage of the
procedure enacted in sections 75 to 77 for imposing a levy. "Rules of the Rajkot Borough
Municipality for the levy of Rate (Tax) on Buildings and Lands" sanctioned by the State
Government of Gujarat with effect from January 1, 1965. Section 102 specifiesthe modes in
which service of a notice contemplated by the Act should be served.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

● Draft rules in order levy rates on buildings and lands in Rajkot was framed by Rajkot
Borough Muncipality and for the same notice was published in accordance with Section
77 of Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.
● The appellant who is a Partnership firm initiated a suit in the Civil court praying to
invalidate the rules and ensuing evaluation list and the connected notices of interest were
without authority of law. A Decree for the same was passed by the trial court a
subsequent appeal was filed by the Municipal Borough of Rajkot in the High Court. The
High court held that conditions of Section 77 of the Act has been satisfied.
● Thus an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court by virtue of Speacial Leave Petition.

● Arguments by the appellants:

The appellant contented that the rules were not published in accordance with section 77
of the Act, and the assessment list and related notices were without authority of law.

The appellant also contented that the sanctioned rules by the Sate Government must be
published along with the notice stating the sanction in the newspaper.

● Arguments by the defendant

Defendant contened that Section 73 enumerates about different taxes which can be levied
by municipality, where as section 75 to section 77 explains the procedure for
municipality to levy tax. Thus under Section 76 the state government sanctions the same
and Section 77 mandates that the Municipality must publish the officially approved rules
within Municipal borough. This publication should be accompanied by a notice that
states the details of the sanction.
 Furthermore the Municipality had the option to publish the officially approved rules in
the newspaper. However, instead, it chose to inform the public through a notice stating
that the rules were available for inspection at the Municipal office and that copies could
be obtained from there.

● Case laws referred in the case by the parties

In the case of Chunni Lal v. The Municipal Board, Shri Madhopur, a disagreement
between two Judges of the Rajasthan High Court led to a third Judge concluding that the
provision for inspecting rules in the Municipal Office did not meet the criteria for
publication under section 62 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951. This
conclusion was based on specific evidentiary material, suggesting that it was not
reasonably possible for the public to familiarize themselves with the rule contents. In the
present case, no such difficulty was presented.

Another case, Gokaldas Amarshi v. Porbandar City Municipality, dealt with the
publication of draft rules in the preliminary stage before imposing a tax.

The appellant also referred to Commissioner of Sales-tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Modi Sugar
Mills Ltd, The Municipal Corporation Bhopal, M.P. v. Misbahul Hasan and Ors,
Govindlal Chhaggan Lal Patel v. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Godhra and Ors., but it was deemed that none of these cases provided assistance to the
appellant in the present matter.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court, dissmissed the case, stating that the Act or the Statue is silent as to
the publishing of the notice and the mode as to which the rules were to be published, the
same could have been adopted. Section 102 as well does not specify an rules as to the
mode of publication thus general principles must be referred to adopt the mode of
publication. Thus it can be said that if the mode adopted for publication is sufficient for
individuals affected by the rule then it is in compliance with the laws and the essentials of
publication has been complied with.

The aforementioned action fulfilled the requirements of section 77, as it provided notice
to all individuals who own buildings and other immovable property within the Rajkot
Municipal limits. The notice informed them that the rules mentioned in the document had
been approved by the State Government and that they could inspect the rules at the
Municipal office. The notification complies with the provision of section 77, which
required that the rules be published. Directory or significant compliance determines how
the regulations are published. If it is fairly possible for people who are impacted by the
regulations to learn about them through the method the notice specifies, and they do so
with due diligence, then that is adequate.