MUNICLPAL BOARD, HAPUR versus RAGHUVENDRA KRLPAL AND OTHERS

MUNICLPAL BOARD, HAPUR versus RAGHUVENDRA KRLPAL AND OTHERS

Section 135(3) does not amount to excessive delegation and is not ultra vires; mandatory procedural requirements are crucial, but directory provisions, if substantially complied with, can stand protected by s.135(3); the notification constitutes conclusive evidence only regarding procedural compliance, not the fundamental legality of the tax imposed.

Parties
Appellant: Municipal Board, Hapur; Respondents: Raghurvendra Kripal and others; Intervener: Intervener No. 1; Intervener: Intervener No. 2; Intervener: State of Rajasthan (Intervener); Intervener: Intervener No. 3; Intervener: Intervener No. 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); order of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Excessive Delegation, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Tax Procedure, Mandatory Vs Directory Provisions, Ultra Vires, Discrimination Under Article 14
Constitutional Law Local Government Law Administrative Law Taxation Law Excessive Delegation Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Tax Procedure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipal Board, Hapur

Appellant

Raghurvendra Kripal and others

Respondents

Intervener No. 1

Intervener

Intervener No. 2

Intervener

State of Rajasthan (Intervener)

Intervener

Intervener No. 3

Intervener

Intervener No. 4

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 131 to 134 of the U.P. Municipalities Act are mandatory or directory
  2. 2 Whether section 135(3) is ultra vires for excessive delegation
  3. 3 Whether section 135(3) suffers from discrimination or confers judicial functions on the State Government

Ratio Decidendi

Section 135(3) does not amount to excessive delegation and is not ultra vires; mandatory procedural requirements are crucial, but directory provisions, if substantially complied with, can stand protected by s.135(3); the notification constitutes conclusive evidence only regarding procedural compliance, not the fundamental legality of the tax imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); order of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.