Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bahram Ji Vs. State of U.P. and Another</B>

Bahram Ji vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 18, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474599

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 1450 of 1989
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - suppression of local body - constitution does not permit suspension of local-self-government beyond six months - whoever may be administrator - who sits to act as the local body - carry on administration with whatever taxes the elected representatives left for him - no sanction to impose fresh taxes or revis...

Key legal issue
Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bahram Ji

Advocate S.K. Verma, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Advocate B.N. Misra, Adv. and ;Addl. C.S.C.

Legal References

Reported In
1999(2)AWC1434; (1999)2UPLBEC956

Excerpt

civil - suppression of local body - constitution does not permit suspension of local-self-government beyond six months - whoever may be administrator - who sits to act as the local body - carry on administration with whatever taxes the elected representatives left for him - no sanction to impose fresh taxes or revise existing taxes. - - the sooner these administrators of superseded local bodies leave their seats, the better it would be.ravi s. dhavan, j.1. on facts, there is no issue in this writ petition-the facts are that at the time when the writ petition was brought to the high court in 1989, there was a town area, basra. in 1989 the town area, basra did not have a committee, known as the town area committee. this body had been superseded. an administrator sat on this body to carry on the functions which otherwise would have been the functions of the elected representatives.2. regarding the entertainment which was being carried on within the town area in cinema, a show tax was proposed and imposed. the petitioner raises the issue that the town area had been superseded by the state government and was shorn of its elected representatives and it was being administered by an administrator. thus, the petitioner contends that the administrator did not have the sanction of law to impose fresh taxes or revise taxes.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner. mr. siddhartha verma, and the additional chief standing counsel, mr. b. n. misra.4. the court has perused the counter affidavit in answer to the writ petition. there is no issue that at the relevant time, the town area hadbeen superseded and the functions of the elected representatives was being carried on by an administrator.5. regard being had to over all circumstances, this court is very clear in its view that supersession of local self-government cannot be a permanent feature of democracy and the necessary corollary of this is that if the state were to supersede local self-government, then whoever may be the administrator who sits to act as the local body, he would have to carry on the administration with whatever taxes the elected representatives left for him. thus, the administrator would not have any sanction to impose fresh taxes or revise existing taxes. superseding local self-government is an exception not a rule by democracy. the sooner these administrators of superseded local bodies leave their seats, the better it would be. today,.....

Full Judgment

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.

1. On facts, there is no issue in this writ petition-The facts are that at the time when the writ petition was brought to the High Court in 1989, there was a Town Area, Basra. In 1989 the Town Area, Basra did not have a committee, known as the Town Area Committee. This body had been superseded. An administrator sat on this body to carry on the functions which otherwise would have been the functions of the elected representatives.

2. Regarding the entertainment which was being carried on within the Town Area in cinema, a show tax was proposed and imposed. The petitioner raises the issue that the Town Area had been superseded by the State Government and was shorn of its elected representatives and it was being administered by an administrator. Thus, the petitioner contends that the administrator did not have the sanction of law to impose fresh taxes or revise taxes.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Verma, and the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. B. N. Misra.

4. The Court has perused the counter affidavit in answer to the writ petition. There is no issue that at the relevant time, the Town Area hadbeen superseded and the functions of the elected representatives was being carried on by an administrator.

5. Regard being had to over all circumstances, this Court is very clear in its view that supersession of local self-government cannot be a permanent feature of democracy and the necessary corollary of this is that if the State were to supersede local self-government, then whoever may be the administrator who sits to act as the local body, he would have to carry on the administration with whatever taxes the elected representatives left for him. Thus, the administrator would not have any sanction to impose fresh taxes or revise existing taxes. Superseding local self-government is an exception not a rule by democracy. The sooner these administrators of superseded local bodies leave their seats, the better it would be. Today, the Constitution of India does not permit the supersession of any elected body which represents local self-government to go beyond the duration of six months.

6. The imposition of fresh tax by the superseded Town Area, Basra, at the hands of the administrator is quashed. But, it is made clear that if the elected representatives or the Legislature in the field in which could have revised this tax or increased taxes from whichever date it might be, then the petitioner would be obliged to pay such tax.

7. The petition succeeds with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial