http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: P N KUMAR AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (1) 732        1987 SCC  (4) 609  JT 1987 (4)   232        1987 SCALE  (2)901

ACT:      Order issued  by the  Deputy Assessor  and Collector OF Assessment  and   Collection  Department  of  the  Municipal Corporation of  Delhi for  payment of  a composite amount of property tax,  fire  tax,  water  tax,  scavenging  tax  and education tax-A writ of certiorari in respect thereof.

HEADNOTE: %      The Deputy Assessor and Collector of the Assessment and Collection Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, issued an  order to  the petitioners,  demanding payment  of Rs.14,07,328 as  composite arrears of the property tax, fire tax, water  tax,  scavenging  tax  and  education  tax.  The petitioners  moved  this  Court  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution for  the issuance  of  a  writ  of  certiorari, quashing the demand order.      Disposing of  the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion on  the merits  of the case, and allowing liberty to the petitioners  to file,  if so  advised, a  writ  petition before  the   High  Court   under  Article  226  of  the  F. Constitution, the Court, ^      HELD: The  scope of the powers of the High Courts under Article 226  of the  Constitution is wider than the scope of the  powers   of  this   Court  under   Article  32  of  the Constitution. The  relief prayed  for in the petition is one which may  be granted by the High Court. Any party aggrieved by the  decision of the High Court can appeal to this Court. That some case involving the same point of law is pending in this Court,  is no  ground for  this Court  to  entertain  a petition, by-passing  the High  Court. If  the  parties  get relief in  the High Court, they need not come to this Court, and, to  that extent,  the burden  on this Court is reduced. This Court  has no time today even to dispose of cases which have to be decided by it alone. A large number of cases have been pending  in this  Court for ten to fifteen years. If no fresh cases  are filed in this Court thereafter, this Court, with its  present strength  of Judges, may take more than 15 years to  dispose of  all the  pending cases.  If the cases, which can  be filed  in the High Courts, are filed there and not in  this Court,  the work  of this Court in its original

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Jurisdiction, which  is a  time consuming  process,  can  be avoided, and the time saved by this 733 Court by not entertaining the case which may be filed in the High Courts,  can be utilized to dispose of the old matters, [734E-H; 735A-E]      This Court  will also have the benefit of the decisions of the High Courts when it deals with an appeal against such a decision.  The High  Courts have  judges of  eminence, who have initiative, skill and enthusiasm. Their capacity should be harnessed  to deal with every type of cases, arising from their respective  areas, which they are competent to dispose of. If  the cases, which may be filed in the High Courts are filed in  this Court, this will affect the initiative of the High Courts. The dignity, majesty and efficiency of the High Courts should be preserved. The taking over by this Court of the work which the High Courts can handle, may undermine the capacity and  efficiency of the High Courts, which should be avoided. [735E-F]      The hearing  of a  case at the level of a High Court is also more convenient from several angles and will be cheaper to the  parties. That  saves a lot of time too. It is easier for the  clients to  give instructions to the lawyers. There are eminent lawyers practising in the High Courts, with wide experience in handling different kinds of cases. The lawyers there are  fully aware of every legislation in their States. [734G]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8678 of 1986.                                IN      Writ Petition No. 9 144 of 1983.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      G.   Vishwanath   Iyer,   M.K.D.   Namboodry   and   S. Balakrishnan for the Petitioners.      R.B. Datar and V.B. Saharya for the Respondent.      The following order of the Court was delivered:                             O R D E R      In this  Writ Petition  the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate  order  or  direction  quashing  the  order  No. Tax/HQ/Spl. Cell/83- 1948 dated 4-8- 1983 734 issued  by   the  Deputy   Assessor  and  Collector  of  the Assessment  and   Collection  Department  of  the  Municipal Corporation of  Delhi  fixing  the  rateable  value  of  the property of the petitioners at Rs.12,10,300 with effect from 9.6. 1981  and the  consequent bill  180/II  dated  4-8-1983 served on  the petitioners making a demand of arrears of Rs. 14,07,328 as  a composite  amount of property tax, fire tax, water tax,  scavenging tax  and education tax and making any other order  as the Court deems fit. The first petitioner is a shareholder  and company  secretary of  the  company  M/s. Siddharth Inter-Continental  Hotels  (India)  Ltd.  and  the second petitioner is M/s. Siddharth Inter-Continental Hotels (India) Ltd.  On 26.  10. 1987 we passed an order adjourning the case  to 2.11.  1987 to hear the learned counsel for the parties on  the question  whether the  above petition  under Article 32  of the  Constitution should  be decided  by this Court  or  whether  we  should  direct  the  petitioners  to approach  the   High  Court   under  Article   226  of   the Constitution. Accordingly we have heard the learned counsel.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    We are  of  the  view  that  this  petition  should  be disposed of  without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case  reserving liberty  to the  petitioners to  file  a petition, if so advised, before the High Court under Article 226 of  the Constitution.  We accordingly  dispose  of  this petition for the following reasons:      1. The  scope of  the powers  of the  High Courts under Article 226  of the  Constitution is wider than the scope of the  powers   of  this   Court  under   Article  32  of  the Constitution      2. The  relief prayed  for in the petition is one which may be  granted by the High Court and any of the parties who is dissatisfied  with the  judgment of  the High  Court  can approach this  Court by way of an appeal. The fact that some case involving the very same point of law is pending in this Court is  no ground  to entertain  a petition  directly  by- passing the High Court.      3. If  the parties  get relief  at the High Court, they need not  come here  and to  that extent  the burden on this Court is reduced.      4. The  hearing of  the case  at the  level of the High Court is  more convenient  from several  angles and  will be cheaper to the parties. It saves lot of time too. It will be easier  for  the  clients  to  give  instructions  to  their lawyers.      5. Our High Courts are High Courts. Each High Court has its 735 own high  traditions. They  have judges of eminence who have initiative, necessary  skills and enthusiasm. Their capacity should be  harnessed to deal with every type of case arising from their  respective areas,  which they  are competent  to dispose of.      6. Every  High Court  Bar has also its high traditions. There are eminent lawyers practising in the High Courts with wide experience  in handling  different kinds of cases, both original and  appellate. They are fully aware of the history of every  legislation in their States. Their services should be made available to the litigants in the respective States      7. This  Court has  no time  today even  to dispose  of cases which  have to  be decided by it alone and by no other authority. Large  number of  cases are pending from 10 to 15 years. Even if no new case is filed in this Court hereafter, with the present strength of Judges it may take more than 15 years to dispose of all the pending cases.      8. If  the cases  which can be filed in the High Courts are filed  in the  High Court  and not  in this  Court  this Court’s task  of acting  as   original court which is a time consuming process  can be  avoided and  this Court will also have the  benefit of  the decision of the High Court when it deals with an appeal filed against such decision.      9. If  cases which  may be filed in the High Courts are filed in  this Court  it would  affect the initiative of the High Courts.  We should  preserve the  dignity, majesty  and efficiency of the High Courts. The taking-over by this Court of the  work which  the High Courts can handle may undermine the capacity  and efficiency  of the  High Courts  and  that should therefore he avoided.      10. Lastly,  the  time  saved  by  this  Court  by  not entertaining the  cases which  may be  filed before the High Courts can  be utilised  to dispose  of old matters in which parties are crying for relief.      These are  some of  the reasons which have compelled us to pass this order. S.L.                                    Petition disposed of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

736