Scribd
Upload
438 views

Raj Narain Singh Case

Raj Narain Singh challenged the extension of municipal taxes to his village through executive notifications. [1] The notifications used sections of the Bihar and Orissa Act to apply tax provisions from the Bengal Municipality Act, omitting sections that allowed objections. [2] The Supreme Court held this omitted an essential feature and changed the legislative policy by preventing objections. [3] The notifications exceeded executive authority and were invalid.

Uploaded by

Pratham
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
438 views

Raj Narain Singh Case

Raj Narain Singh challenged the extension of municipal taxes to his village through executive notifications. [1] The notifications used sections of the Bihar and Orissa Act to apply tax provisions from the Bengal Municipality Act, omitting sections that allowed objections. [2] The Supreme Court held this omitted an essential feature and changed the legislative policy by preventing objections. [3] The notifications exceeded executive authority and were invalid.

Uploaded by

Pratham
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Raj Narain Singh v.

Chairman Patna Administration Committee


AIR 1954 SC 569

Summary
S.3(1)(f) of the Bihar & Orissa Act, empowered the local administration to extend to Patna
the provisions of any sections of the act (Bengal Municipality Act, 1884) subject to such
modification, as it might think fit. The government picked up section 104 and after
modifications applied it to the town of Patna. One of the essential features of the Act was the
provision that no municipality competent to tax could be thrust upon a locality without giving
its inhabitants a chance of being heard and of being given as opportunity to object. The
sections which provided for an opportunity to object were excluded from the notification. It
was held as amounting to tamper with the policy of the Act.

Fact of the Case: 


Raj Narain Singh was the Secretary of the Patna Ratepayers’ Association. He and the other
members of his Association lived in the village of Yarpur that was previously outside the
municipal limits of Patna and thus was not subject to municipal or cognate taxation. As a
result, the appellant and the others he represents were required to pay taxes from April 1,
1951, to March 31, 1952.

Sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Patna Administration Act of 1915 were used to issue the
notifications (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915).

The appellant claimed that the notifications are bad because they are delegated legislation,
and he requested that sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Act, which allow for this delegation, be
declared unconstitutional.

Law Involved:
1. Section 3, The Patna Administration Act, 1915
2. Sections 3(1)(f) and 5, The Patna Administration Act of 1915
3. Bengal Municipal Act, 1884
4. The Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (Act 7 of 1922)

Legal Reasoning:
Section 3(1)(f) of the Bihar and Orissa Act empowered the local administration to extend to
Patna the provisions of any sections of the Bengal Municipality Act, 1884 subject to such
modifications as it deemed necessary. Section 104 was taken up by the government and
modified before being applied to the town of Patna.

One of the essential features of the act was the provision that no municipality was competent
to impose tax on a locality without first providing its residents with an opportunity to be
heard and object. 

The sections that allowed for an opportunity to object were left out of the notification. It was
deemed to be tampering with the Act’s policy.

Judgment:
The petitioner before the High Court of Patna was granted leave to appeal under Article
132(1) of the Constitution on the grounds that a substantial question of law relating to the
interpretation of the Constitution was involved.

The delegation was held to go to the extent of authorizing an executive authority to modify
the law made, delegation of legislative functions can be made to executive authorities within
certain limits.

The Supreme Court held that the action of the Governor in subjecting the residents of Patna
to municipal taxation without observing the formalities imposed by sections 4, 5 and 6 of the
Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act of 1922, cuts across one of its essential features touching a
matter of policy and so the Notification is bad.

The Local Government has under a statutory duty imposed by the Act in mandatory terms to
listen to the objections and take them into consideration before reaching a decision. This is a
matter of policy imposed by the Legislature. It cannot be left to an executive authority to tear
up this guarantee in disregard of the Legislature’s solemnly expressed mandate.

It was held that the Notification effected a radical change in the policy in the Act, travelled
beyond the authority conferred by section 3 (1) (f) and was, therefore, ultra vires.

Conclusion:
An executive authority may make changes to existing or future laws, but not to any essential
feature. Because a portion of an Act can be extended, a section or sections can also be
selected and applied. However, when a section is chosen for the application, whether
modified or not, it must be done so in such a way that it does not result in any change of
policy.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy