{"id":2422,"date":"1961-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961"},"modified":"2015-06-30T15:46:51","modified_gmt":"2015-06-30T10:16:51","slug":"the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","title":{"rendered":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 988, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 355<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE MUNICIPALITY OF ANAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/12\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  988\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 355\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC 548\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n     Octroi, Tax-Imposition  by Municipality-order\nby Government  prohibiting imposition-Validity of-\nBombay\tDistrict  Municipal  Act,  1901\t (Bom,\tof\n1901), s. 59-Constitution of India, Art. 14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     After following  the procedure  prescribed by\nthe Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, and after\nobtaining the requisite sanction of the Government\nthe  appellant\timposed\t an  octroi  tax  on  milk\nbrought within\tits limits for consumption, use or\nsale therein.  Shortly afterwards  the\tGovernment\npassed an\n367\norder directing\t that the  octroi tax shall not be\nleviable by the appellant. The appellant contented\nthat the  Government had  no power  to control the\nimposition of  the tax\tonce it\t had been properly\nimposed.\n^\n     Held, that the Government was competent under\ns. 59  of the  Act to  pass the\t order. Section 59\nprovided that  subject to  any general\tor special\norders which  the State\t Government  may  make,\t a\nMunicipality may  \"impose\" the tax after following\nthe procedure  laid down  and after  obtaining the\nsanction of  the Government.  The word \"impose\" in\ns. 59  meant the  actual levy  of  the\ttax  after\nauthority to  levy it  had been\t acquired by rules\nduly made  and sanctioned  and this imposition was\nsubject to  the general\t or special  orders of the\nGovernment. The\t general and  special orders under\ns. 59  could not be confined to orders under s. 73\nwhich gave the Government power to suspend the tax\nin certain cases.\n     Held,  further,   that  the   order  of   the\nGovernment was\tnot  discriminatory.  Subsequently\nthe Government\thad prohibited\tall municipalities\nfrom levying  octroi tax  on milk.  For\t the  same\nreason no question of mala fides could arise.\n     Per Ayyangar,  J.-Imposition  of  tax  was\t a\ncontinuing power  deriving vitality from the power\nof the\tauthority to  impose it.  The power of the\nGovernment to issue special or general order under\ns.  59\t was   therefore   not\t exhausted   after\n\"imposition\" of\t the tax. There were provisions in\nss. 47,\t 73 and\t 74 for\t other\tcontingencies  but\nexcept for the opening words of s. 59 there was no\nprovision to  enable Government\t to  intervene\tin\ncases where  the continued levy was against public\ninterest. The  opening words  of s. 59 clothed the\nGovernment with\t power to direct a municipality to\ndesist from imposing a tax.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal
\nNo. 211 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal from the judgment and order dated July
\n19, 1955,  of the  Bombay High\tCourt  in  Special
\nCivil application No. 976 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
     A.\t V.   Viswanatha  Sastri,  S.  N.  Andley,
\nRameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M. C.  Setalvad, Attorney-General\tfor India,
\nC. K.  Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and B.
\nSen, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     Vithlbhai B.  Patel and  I.  N.  Shroff,  for
\nrespondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
368<\/span><\/p>\n
     1961, December  21. The  Judgment of Sinha C.
\nJ., Sarkar,  Das  Gupta\t and  Mudholkar\t JJ.,  was
\ndelivered by  Sarkar J.\t Ayyangar J.,  delivered a
\nseparate judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     SARKAR   J.-The\tappellant   is\t  a   City
\nMunicipality within  the  meaning  of  the  Bombay
\nDistrict Municipal  Act, 1901  and is  governed by
\nthat Act.  It had  by a\t resolution duly passed by
\nit, made  a rule  under s. 60 of the Act selecting
\nfor the\t purpose of  an octroi\ttax of -\/4\/- annas
\nper Bengali  maund, milk brought within its octroi
\nlimits for  consumption, use  or sale  therein. On
\nNovember 29,  1954, the\t Government of\tBombay had
\ngiven its  sanction to the rule under s. 61 of the
\nAct.   The   appellant\t Municipality\tthereafter
\npublished the rule and the sanction as required by
\ns. 62  of the  Act and\tthe  tax  was  accordingly
\nimposed with effect from January 1, 1955. On April
\n4, 1955,  the Government of Bombay passed an order
\ndirecting  that\t  the  octroi  tax  shall  not\tbe
\nleviable by the appellant Municipality. This order
\nhas given rise to the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  Municipality filed\ta petition
\nin the\tHigh Court at Bombay under Art. 226 of the
\nConstitution  challenging   the\t validity  of  the
\norder. This  petition was  dismissed by\t the  High
\nCourt. The  appellant Municipality has now come up
\nto this\t Court in  appeal against  the decision of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The questions that arise in this case will be
\nstated after a few of the sections of the Act have
\nbeen referred  to. Chapter  VII of  the Act  deals
\nwith municipal\ttaxation. We  shall  be\t concerned
\nprincipally with  ss. 59,  60, 61 and 62 which are
\nall  contained\tin  this  chapter  and\tdeal  with
\nimposition of  taxes by Municipalities. It will be
\nnecessary also to consider s. 46.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 46\t gives power  to a Municipality to
\nmake rules for various purposes as specified in
\n369<\/span>
\nthe several clauses contained in it. Under cl. (i)
\nof this\t section a  Municipality has power to make
\nrules for  the purpose of “prescribing, subject to
\nthe provisions\tof Chapter  VII, the  taxes to\tbe
\nlevied”. Section  59 is\t the section  on which the
\ndecision of  this case\twill really  turn and  we,
\ntherefore, think  it right to set out that portion
\nof it which is relevant for our purpose.\n<\/p>\n
     S. 59.  (1) Subject to any general or special
\n\t  orders the  State Government may make in
\n\t  this behalf, any Municipality-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  after  observing\t  the  preliminary
\n\t       procedure required  by  section\t60
\n\t       and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b)  with  the  sanction  of\tthe  State
\n\t       Government  in  the  case  of  City
\n\t       Municipalities\t………..    and
\n\t       subject to  such\t modifications\tor
\n\t       conditions as  under section 61 the
\n\t       State Government……………. in
\n\t       according such sanction, deems fit,
\n\t       may impose,  for\t the  purposes\tof
\n\t       this  Act,  any\tof  the\t following
\n\t       taxes, that is to say,
\n\t       ……………………………..
\n\t       ……….\n<\/p>\n
\t  (iv) an octroi  on animals  or goods, or
\n\t       both,  brought  within  the  octroi
\n\t       limits for consumption, use or sale
\n\t       therein;\n<\/p>\n
Section 60  lays down the procedure to be observed
\nby a  Municipality preliminary\tto imposing a tax.
\nIt requires  that  first  a  resolution\t shall\tbe
\npassed at  a meeting to the Municipality selecting
\nthe tax\t and making  rules for the proposes of cl.\n<\/p>\n
(i) of\ts. 46  prescribing the tax. Thereafter the
\nresolution has\tto be published with a notice in a
\nspecified form\tinviting the  inhabitants  of  the
\nMunicipal
\n370<\/span>
\narea to submit within a month their objections, if
\nany, to\t the tax.  After the  objections have come
\nin, they  are to  be considered\t by a committee of
\nthe Municipality  and unless  on the report of the
\ncommittee the  Municipality decides to abandon the
\ntax, it\t has to\t submit the  objections\t with  its
\nopinion thereon,  any modifications  it desires to
\nmake and  the rules  prescribing the  tax  to  the
\nState Government.  Section  61\tprovides  that\ton
\nreceipt\t of   the  rules   and\tthe  other  things
\nmentioned in  s. 60  from  the\tMunicipality,  the
\nGovernment may\trefuse to  sanction the\t rules, or
\nreturn\tthem   to  the\tMunicipality  for  further
\nconsideration or  sanctioned them  with or without
\nmodifications or subject to conditions prescribed.
\nSection 62  lays down that the rules as sanctioned
\nby  the\t Government  shall  be\tpublished  by  the
\nMunicipality and  the tax  shall,  from\t the  date
\nwhich shall  be specified in the notice publishing
\nthe rules,  be imposed\taccordingly. It\t is not in
\ncontroversy that in the present case the procedure
\nprescribed in  the sections  mentioned\tabove  had
\nbeen complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     The Government’s contention is that the order
\nmade by it was competent as it was order which was
\nauthorised by  s. 59,  subject to which only a tax
\ncould be  imposed by a Municipality. The appellant
\nMunicipality does not dispute that it can impose a
\ntax only  under s.  59 but  it contents\t that  the
\ngeneral or special orders mentioned in the section
\nsubject to  which it  has the power to impose tax,
\nare orders which were in existence before the rule
\nprescribing the tax was framed and once a rule has
\nbeen framed  by it and the Government has accorded
\nits sanction  to that  rule, the Government has no
\npower to control the imposition of tax under it by
\nany order made under s. 59. The question so raised
\nis one\tof the construction of s. 59. But for such
\nconstruction we\t have to  refer also  to the other
\nsections earlier mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
371<\/span><\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, the  Government’s contention
\nis well\t founded. The  Municipality’s power to tax
\narises only  under s.  59. Under  that section, it
\nhas been  given the  power of  impose a\t tax after
\nfollowing the  procedure  prescribed  but  subject
\nalways to  the general\tor special  orders of  the
\nGovernment. The appellant Municipality can succeed
\nin this\t appeal only if the word “impose” in s. 59
\nmeans the  acquisition of  the\tpower  to  tax\tby
\nfollowing the procedure laid down in ss. 60 to 62.
\nIts appeal  must otherwise  fail. It  seems to\tus
\nthat the  word “impose”\t in  s.\t 59  has  not  the
\nmeaning\t for   which  the  appellant  Municipality
\ncontends.\n<\/p>\n
     It would have been noticed that under s. 59 a
\nMunicipality may  impose a  tax only  after it has
\nframed a  rule under  s. 60 prescribing the tax to
\nbe  levied   and  the  Government  has\tgiven  its
\nsanction to  that rule\tunder s.  61. It  is  this
\nimposition which  is made by s. 59 “subject to any
\ngeneral\t or   special  orders\twhich  the   State
\nGovernment may make in this behalf”. Therefore, it
\nis the\timposition after  the making  of the  rule
\nauthorising  the  tax,\tthat  is  subject  to  the
\nGovernment’s orders and not the making of the rule
\nitself which  authorises the  tax  itself.  It\tis
\nplain  from   s.  59   that  the  control  over\t a
\nMunicipality’s\tpower\tto  tax\t  imposed  by  the
\nrequirement of\tthe Government’s  sanction of  the
\nrule prescribing the tax in contained in s. 61, is
\nnot the\t same thing as the control contemplated by
\nthe general  or special orders mentioned in s. 59,
\nfor both  are mentioned\t in s.\t59. If it were not
\nso, it\twould have been unnecessary to provide for
\nthe general  or\t special  orders  controlling  the
\nimposition of  the tax in s. 59. This is the first
\nreason\t why   we   think   that   the\t appellant
\nMunicipality’s contention is untenable.\n<\/p>\n
     The  imposition  contemplated  by\ts.  59\tis
\nclearly not the passing of the resolutions under
\n372<\/span>
\ns. 60  selecting  the  tax  and\t making\t the  rule
\nprescribing the\t tax to\t be levied  in terms of s.
\n46(i),\tfor   s.  59(1)(a)   expressly\tmakes  the
\nimposition something  happening after  s.  60  has
\nbeen complied with. This seems to us to be another
\nreason\t for\tnot   accepting\t   the\t appellant
\nMunicipality’s contention.\n<\/p>\n
     The third\treason is to be found in s. 62. As
\nwe have\t earlier stated,  it provides that the tax
\nshall be  imposed from\tthe date  mentioned in the
\nnotice publishing  the sanctioned rule. The choice
\nof this\t date lies  with the  Municipality and not
\nwith the  Government. The power to levy the tax is
\nacquired  by   a  Municipality\t when\tthe   rule
\nprescribing the\t tax made  by it  is sanctioned by
\nthe Government. The Municipality at its own choice
\nthereafter fixes a date from which it will collect
\nthe tax.  Therefore, the  word “impose”\t in s.\t62
\ndoes not refer to the acquisition of power to levy
\na tax by making the rule but to the actual levy of
\nthe tax under the power so acquired. It is of some
\nsignificance to\t note that  in s.  46(i) the words
\nused are  “make……rules…. prescribing…..the
\ntaxes to  be levied”. What we wish to point out is
\nthat in\t connection with  the making  of the rules
\nthe Act uses the word “levied” in s. 46 (i) and in
\nconnection  with   an  actual\timpost,\t and  word
\n“imposed” in  s. 62.  We, therefore, think that it
\nwould be  legitimate to construe the word “impose”
\nin s. 59 in the sense in which it has clearly been
\nused in\t a connected  provision, that  is, s.  62.
\nHence, in  our view,  “impose” in  s. 59 means the
\nactual levy  of the tax after authority to levy it
\nhas  been   acquired  by   rules  duly\t made  and
\nsanctioned, and it is such imposition that is made
\nsubject to  the general\t or special  orders of the
\nGovernment. Therefore,\tthe Government\tcan at any
\ntime by\t any such order prohibit the imposition of
\nthe tax.\n<\/p>\n
373<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mr. Sastri\t for the  appellant said  that the
\ngeneral or special orders in s. 59 refer to orders
\nthat can  be made  under s.  73, but  the  present
\norder had  admittedly not  been\t made  under  that
\nsection. Section  73 does  not\tempower\t an  order
\nprohibiting the\t imposition of a tax altogether as
\nthe order  in the present case does. It only gives
\npower to  suspend the  levy of\tthe tax authorised
\ntill  the   objections\tto   the  tax\twhich  the
\nGovernment  required   to  be  removed,\t had  been
\nremoved. Because  s. 73\t gives a  power to suspend
\nthe tax,  it is,  in our opinion, no argument that
\nthe general  or special\t orders in  s. 59  must be
\nunderstood as  confined to such orders. Section 73
\ncannot help  in interpreting the words “general or
\nspecial orders” in s. 59.\n<\/p>\n
     A third  objection to  the\t validity  of  the
\norder was  that it was discriminatory. It was said
\nthat no\t other Municipality  had  been\tprohibited
\nfrom collecting\t a similar  tax which it had power
\nunder its  rules to  collect. Apart  from the very
\ninteresting  question\traised\tby   the   learned
\nAttorney General  that the  Municipality  being\t a
\nlocal  authority,   was\t a   state,  and  was  not
\ntherefore entitled  to the  benefit of Art. 14, as
\nto which  we think  it unnecessary  to express any
\nopinion we  are on  the facts satisfied that there
\nis no  discrimination. The  Government has now, it
\nis not\tdisputed,  prohibited  all  Municipalities
\nfrom levying  any octroi tax on milk. Furthermore,
\nit  has\t  not  been   shown   to   us\tthat   all
\nMunicipalities stand  on  the  same  footing  with
\nregard to milk.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  objection was  that the\torder  had
\nbeen mala  fide made. This grievance is completely
\nwithout foundation.  The  Government  had  earlier
\nrequested the  appellant Municipality  to drop the
\ntax on\tthe ground,  among others,  that milk  was
\nreally being purchased for the Government and that
\nthe Government was not liable to be
\n374<\/span>
\ntaxed by  a Municipality.  It  may  be\tthat  this
\nground was  not justified  on the facts, but as to
\nthis we do not come to any finding. It is clear to
\nus that even if this stand taken by the Government
\nwas not\t tenable, that\tis no  reason for thinking
\nthat the  order was  made mala\tfide. It  was said
\nthat the Government had made this order to benefit
\nrespondent No. 2, a co-operative union, dealing in
\nmilk.  This  is\t a  bare  allegation  and  is  not
\nsupported by  facts. In\t any event,  since similar
\norders have  now  been\tmade  in  respect  of  all
\nMunicipalities within  the State,  no question\tof
\nmala fide can possibly arise.\n<\/p>\n
     We think  that the\t challenge  to\tthe  order
\ndated April  4, 1955 is without any foundation. In
\nour view,  the order  was perfectly legitimate and
\nmust be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
     We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
\n     AYYANGAR  J.-I  have  had\tthe  advantage\tof
\nperusing the  judgment just  delivered and I agree
\nwith order passed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  relevant   facts   and   the\t statutory
\nprovisions which bear on the points arising in the
\nappeal have  all been  set out by Sarkar J. and do
\nnot require to be repeated.\n<\/p>\n
     There is no dispute that the levy of the duty
\nby the\tmunicipality as\t and from  January 1, 1955
\nwas lawful  because the\t requirements of ss. 59-62
\nwere satisfied\twhen the levy was made. No general
\nor special  order of the State Government stood in
\nthe way\t of the municipality making the particular
\nlevy and  the sanction\tof  the\t State\tGovernment
\nunder s.  59 (1)  (b) had been accorded to it, and
\nthe relevant rules had conformed to the procedural
\nand other  requirements\t of  these  sections.  The
\npower of  the municipality  in the  matter of  the
\nlevy of\t the tax  is, however, not absolute but it
\nmade subject, apart from other provisions to which
\nI
\n375<\/span>
\nshall advert,  to such\tgeneral and special orders
\nas the\tState Government  might pass  by virtue of
\nthe opening words of s. 59 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The  argument   strenuously  pressed  by  Mr.
\nVisvanatha Sastri  was this: The Government had no
\ndoubt, a power to prescribe and control by general
\nor special  orders the\tright of a municipality to
\nimpose a  tax. These  general  or  special  orders
\nwould again,  no doubt, be subject to modification
\nfrom time  to time  to suit  the changing needs of
\nparticular areas, or of particular interests which
\nwould  be   affected  by  the  tax-levy,  but  the
\nexercise of  the power\tof  modification  or  this
\npower too prescribe conditions and restrictions is
\nexhausted when\ta municipality does, by conforming
\nto the\torders then  in force, impose a levy which
\nhas come into force under s. 62.\n<\/p>\n
     I am  unable to  agree with this construction
\nof the opening words of s. 59 (1). On its language
\nthere is  nothing to  warrant the doctrine that it
\ngets  exhausted\t  by  reason   of  a  municipality
\nimposing a  tax in  conformity with an order as it
\nstood  at   a  particular   date.  The\tlimitation
\nsuggested  must\t  therefore,  be   deduced  as\t a
\nnecessary implication  either from  the fasciculus
\nof sections  ending with  s.  62  leading  to  the
\nimposition of  a levy, or from other provisions of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The other\tprovision  of  the  Act\t to  which
\nlearned Counsel referred was s. 73 which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If it  shall at  any time appear to the
\n     Provincial Government,  on complaint  made or
\n     otherwise,\t that\tany  tax,  leviable  by\t a
\n     Municipality, is  unfair in its incidence, or
\n     that  the\t levy  thereof,\t or  of\t any  part
\n     thereof, is  obnoxious to the interest of the
\n     general  public,  it  may\trequire\t the  said
\n     Municipality, within  such period as it shall
\n     fix in  this behalf,  to  take  measures  for
\n     removing any objection which appears to it to
\n     exist to the said tax,
\n376<\/span>
\n     and if,  within the  period  so  fixed,  such
\n     requirement shall\tnot be carried into effect
\n     to\t the   satisfaction  of\t  the\tProvincial
\n     Government, it  may, by  notification in  the
\n     official Gazette,\tsuspend the  levy of  such
\n     tax, or of such part thereof, until such time
\n     as the objection there to shall be removed.
\n\t  The Provincial  Government  may  at  any
\n     time, by  a like  notification,  rescind  any
\n     such suspension.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  obvious that  this section  is  of  limited
\noperation and  confined to the subject it actually
\ndeals with. It posts the continued exaction of the
\nimpost, but points to the removal of anomalies and
\nhardships in  the details  of the  levy or  of its
\nadministration. The  existence of  this\t provision
\nwould manifestly not suffice to negative the right
\nof  the\t  Government  to   forbid  the\t continued
\nimposition of  the tax altogether-such as has been
\ndone  in  the  present\tcase.  Section\t73  cannot
\ntherefore   be\t  construed   as   negativing\tby
\nimplication  the   right  claimed   by\tthe  state
\nGovernment under  s. 59,  for  it  refers  to  and
\ncomprehends a totally different subject-matter.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming now\t to the\t construction of ss. 59-62
\nas themselves  supporting theory of the exhaustion
\nof  the\t power,\t the  submission  was  this.  “The
\ngeneral or special orders” could only restrict the
\npower of  a municipality “to impose a tax”. On the
\nscheme of  provisions contained in ss. 59-62 a tax
\nwas “imposed”  only once,  though when imposed and
\nin operation the levy and collection of such a tax
\nmight be  periodic and\tthroughout the life of the
\nimposition. Hence  there  was  no  scope  for  the
\nexercise of  the State\tGovernment  to\tmake  “any
\nspecial order”\tin relation  to a tax after it has
\nonce been “imposed” because the power to prescribe
\nconditions or  restrictions by\tgeneral or special
\norder is with reference to the “imposition” of the
\ntax. I\tfeel unable  to accept\tthis construction.
\nThe whole foundation
\n377<\/span>
\nof the\targument is  based  on\ta  denial  of  the
\npremise that a power to impose tax is a continuing
\npower. In my judgment the “imposition” of a tax is
\na continuing power in the sense that so long as it
\nis in  force, it  points to  the existence  of and
\nderives vitality  from the  power of the authority
\nto impose it. When the municipality levies the tax
\nin the\tsense of  quantifying it with reference to
\nan  ascertained\t person\t and  thereby  creating\t a
\nstatutory debt\tpayable by the tax payer, it is in
\nreality exercising  the power to “impose” the tax,
\nfor  it\t  is  the   continued  existence   of  the
\nimposition that\t furnishes the legal basis for the
\nlevy when  made.  When\tthe  power  to\timpose\tis
\nwithdrawn the imposition falls to the ground. That
\nis the\tratio of  saving provisions  which  enable
\ntaxes to  be levied and collected not withstanding
\nthe deprivation\t of the\t right to impose taxes for
\nthe future. In this view it is clear that there is
\nno exhaustion of the State power under the opening
\nwords of s. 59 (1).\n<\/p>\n
     In arriving  at this construction I have also
\ntaken into consideration the scheme of the Act and
\nthe wide  powers conferred on the State Government
\nin the\tmatter of control and supervision over the
\nmunicipalities powers  designed to  ensure,  that,
\nsubject of  course to express statutory provision,
\nmunicipal administration  is coordinated to secure
\nthe vital interest of the general public.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  connection reference  may be made to
\ns. 74 of the Act which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whenever it\tappears to  the Provincial
\n     Government that  the balance of the municipal
\n     fund of  any Municipality is insufficient for
\n     meeting  the   expenditure\t  incurred   under
\n     section 175  or for  the performance  of  any
\n     duties in\trespect of  which they\tshall have
\n     been  declared  under  section  178  to  have
\n     committed default,\t the Provincial Government
\n     may be  notification require the Municipality
\n     to impose
\n378<\/span>
\n     within the\t Municipal district,  any such tax
\n     specified\tin  the\t notification  as  may\tbe
\n     imposed under section 59 if no such tax is at
\n     the time  imposed therein,\t or to enhance any
\n     existing tax in such manner or to such extent
\n     as the  Provincial Government  considers fit,
\n     and the  Municipality shall forthwith proceed
\n     to impose\tor enhance  in accordance with the
\n     requisition such  tax under the provisions of
\n     this  Chapter  as\tif  a  resolution  of  the
\n     Municipality had  been passed for the purpose
\n     under section 60:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  the  Provincial\t Government  shall
\n\t       take   into    consideration    any
\n\t       objection which the Municipality or
\n\t       any  inhabitant\tof  the\t Municipal
\n\t       district\t may   make  against   the
\n\t       imposition or  enhancement of  such
\n\t       tax,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  it shall\t not  be  lawful  for  the
\n\t       Municipality to\tabandon or  modify
\n\t       or  to\tabolish\t such\ttax   when
\n\t       imposed, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  the Provision Government may at any
\n\t       time   cancel\tor   modify    any
\n\t       requisition made\t by it\tunder this
\n\t       section, and the levy of tax or the
\n\t       enhancement, except  as to  arrears
\n\t       theretofore  accrued   due.   shall
\n\t       thereupon  cease\t  or  be  modified
\n\t       accordingly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Government are  thus empowered both to direct
\nthe municipality  to impose  tax  when\tGovernment
\nconsider the  same necessary  in the  interest\tof
\nmunicipal finance  and administration  as also\tto
\ndirect the  municipality to desist from continuing
\nthe imposition when the necessity ceases. In cases
\nwhere a\t tax is\t imposed by  the  municipality\tby
\nvirtue\tof   the  provisions  in  ss.  59-62,  the
\nmunicipality
\n379<\/span>
\nitself could  revoke  the  tax\tif  the\t rules\tso
\nprovide, for s. 47 of the Act enacts:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  Subject\t to  the  requirements\tof
\n     clause (a) of the proviso to section 46 every
\n     Municipality   may,   except   as\t otherwise
\n     provided in  clause (b)  of  the  proviso\tto
\n     section 74,  at any  time for  any sufficient
\n     reason,  suspend,\t reduce\t or   abolish  any
\n     existing  tax   by\t suspending,  altering\tor
\n     rescinding any  rule    describing\t such  tax
\n     under the provisions of clause (1) and of the
\n     first clause of the proviso to section 46.
\n\t  (2)  The   provisions\t of   Chapter  VII
\n     relating to the imposition of taxes shall, so
\n     far as  may  be,  apply  to  the  suspension,
\n     reduction or  abolition of any tax and to the
\n     suspension, alteration  or rescission  of any
\n     rule prescribing a tax.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But for\t the opening words of s. 59(1) there is no
\nspecific provision in the Act to enable Government
\nto intervene  in cases where the continued levy of
\na tax  is contrary  to public  interest. I  do not
\nconsider that  any such gap was intended and in my
\njudgement the  opening words  in s. 59(1) are both
\napt and sufficient to clothe Government with power
\nto direct  by ‘special\torder’ a  municipality\tto
\ndesist from  ‘imposing’ a  tax when satisfied that
\npublic interest so requires.\n<\/p>\n
     The points\t raised\t regarding  discrimination
\nand mala  fides are  without substance and for the
\nreasons stated by Sarkar J. I would reject them.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t therefore fails  and  has  to\tbe
\ndismissed with\tcosts.\tThe  Writ  Petition  which
\nraises the  same points\t as the\t appeal will  also
\nstand dismissed but without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
380<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 988, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 355 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANAND Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BOMBAY DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3692,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\",\"name\":\"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961","datePublished":"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961"},"wordCount":3692,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961","name":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-30T10:16:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipality-of-anand-vs-state-of-bombay-on-21-december-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Municipality Of Anand vs State Of Bombay on 21 December, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}