{"id":81965,"date":"1970-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970"},"modified":"2017-09-27T09:22:46","modified_gmt":"2017-09-27T03:52:46","slug":"century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","title":{"rendered":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1021, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 854<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCENTURY SPINNING &  MANUFACTURING COMPANYLTD.  AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ULHASNAGAR- MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/02\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1021\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 854\n 1970 SCC  (1) 582\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC1025\t (5)\n RF\t    1972 SC2112\t (18)\n RF\t    1972 SC2396\t (12)\n RF\t    1973 SC 381\t (16)\n RF\t    1973 SC2232\t (15)\n D\t    1974 SC 651\t (15)\n RF\t    1976 SC 386\t (15)\n RF\t    1977 SC1496\t (13)\n R\t    1979 SC 621\t (25,29,31)\n RF\t    1980 SC1285\t (36,37,43)\n F\t    1985 SC 941\t (4)\n F\t    1986 SC 806\t (11)\n RF\t    1986 SC 872\t (180)\n RF\t    1988 SC1247\t (3)\n C&R\t    1991 SC  14\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution   of  India,  Art.\t 226-High  Court's   Powers-\nDismissal  in  limine-Questions of  fact-Representations  by\nPublic Body-If enforceable ex-contractu by a person who acts\nupon the representations.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants-companies set up their factories  within  an\n\"Industrial Area\", No octroi duty was payable in respect  of\ngoods  imported by the appellants into the  Industrial\tArea\nfor  use in the manufacture of its products.  The  State  of\nMaharashtra constituted a Municipality for certain  villages\nincluding  the Industrial Area.\t On representations made  by\nthe appellants and other manufacturers, the State proclaimed\nthe  exclusion\tof the Industrial Area\tfrom  the  Municipal\nJurisdiction.  The Municipality made representations to\t the\nState  requesting  that\t the  proclamation,  be\t  withdrawn,\nagreeing to exempt the factories in the Industrial Area from\npayment of octroi for seven years from the date of the levy.\nThe State acceeded to the request of the Municipality.\t The\nappellants  claimed to expand their activities relying\tupon\nthe   Municipality's   assurance   and\t undertaking.\t The\nMaharashtra   Municipalities   Act  was\t enacted   and\t the\nrespondent-Municipality took over the administration of\t the\nformer\tmunicipality  as  its  successor.   Thereafter,\t the\nrespondent-Municipality\t sought to levy octroi duty  on\t the\nappellant  amounting to about Rs. 15 lakhs per\tannum.\t The\nappellants   filed  a  petition\t under\tArt.  226   of\t the\nConstitution  to restrain the  respondent-Municipality\tfrom\nenforcing the levy of the Octroi.  The High Court  dismissed\nthe petition in limine.\t In appeal by special leave,\nHELD : The case must be remanded to the High Court for being\nreadmitted  to\tits  file and dealt  with  and\tdisposed  of\naccording to law.\nThe  High Court may, in exercise of its discretion,  decline\nto  exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art.\t 226\nof the Constitution.  But the discretion is judicial; if the\npetitioner  makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious,  or\nprima facie unjust or which may not appropriately be true in\na  petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction,  the  Court\nmay decline to entertain the petition.\tBut a party claiming\nto be aggrieved by the action of a public body or  authority\non  the\t plea  that  the  action  is  unlawful,\t highhanded,\narbitrary or unjust is entitled to a hearing of its petition\non the merits.\tApparently the petition filed by the Company\ndid   not  raise  any  complicated  questions-of  fact\t for\ndetermination,\tand the claim could not be characterised  as\nfrivolous, vexatious or unjust.\t The High Court has given no\nreason\tfor  dismissing\t the petition in limine,  and  on  a\nconsideration  of  the\taverments in the  petition  and\t the\nmaterials  placed  before  the\tCourt  the  appellants\twere\nentitled  to  have its grievance against the action  of\t the\nMunicipality,  which was prima facie unjust, tried.   Merely\nbecause\t a question of fact is -raised, the High Court\twill\nnot  be justified in requiring the party to seek  relief  by\nthe  somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process  by  a\ncivil  suit  against a public body.  The questions  of\tfact\nraised by the petition in this case are elementary. [858  C-\nF]\nPublic\tbodies are as much bound as private  individuals  to\ncarry  out  representations or facts and  promises  made  by\nthem, relying on which\n 855\nother\tpersons\t have  altered\ttheir  position\t  to   their\nprejudice.  The obligation arising against an individual out\nof his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced\nex-contractu by a person who acts upon the promises when the\nlaw  requires that a contract enforceable at law  against  a\npublic\tbody shall be in certain form or be executed in\t the\nmanner\tprescribed by statute and if the contract be not  in\nthat  form the obligation may still be enforced against\t the\nbody in appropriate cases, in equity. [859 D]\nIf  our nascent democracy is to thrive\tdifferent  standards\n\"of  conduct  ,for the people and the public  bodies  cannot\nordinarily  be permitted.  A public body is not exempt\tfrom\nliability  to  carry  out  its\tobligation  arising  out  of\nrepresentations made by it relying upon which a citizen\t has\naltered his position to his prejudice. [860 D]\nThere\tis  undoubtedly\t a  clear  distinction\t between   a\nrepresentation of an existing fact and a representation that\nsomething  will\t be done in future.  The former may,  if  it\namounts\t to a representation as to some fact alleged at\t the\ntime  to  be  actually in existence, raise  an\testoppel  if\nanother\t person\t alters\t his  position\trelying\t upon\tthat\nrepresentation A representation- that something will be done\nin  future  may result in a contract, if another  person  to\nwhom  it is addressed acts upon it.  A\trepresentation\tthat\nsomething  will\t be done in future is not  a  representation\nthat it is true when made.  But between a representation  of\na  fact\t which\tis untrue and a\t representation\t express  or\nimplied-to  do something in future there is no\tclear  anti-\nthesis.\t  A  representation that something will be  done  in\nfuture may involve an existing intention to act in future in\nthe manner represented.\t If the representation is acted upon\nby  another person it may, unless the statute governing\t the\nperson making the representation provides otherwise,  result\nin an agreement enforceable at law; if the statute  requires\nthat- the agreement shall be in a certain form, no  contract\nmay result from the representation and acting thereupon\t but\nthe  law is not powerless to raise in appropriate  cases  an\nequity\tagainst him to compel performance of the  obligation\narising out of his representation. [858 H-859 C]\nUnion  of India & Ors. v. M\/s.\tIndo-Afghan  Agencies  Ltd.,<\/a>\n[1968]\t2  S.C.R. 366: Robertson v.  Minister  of  Pensions,\n[1949]\t1 K.B. 227; Falmouth Board Construction Co. Ltd.  v.\nHowell, [1950] 1 All.  E.R. 538, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  2130\t and
\n2131 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment -and order  dated
\nJune 16, 19, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Special  Civil
\nApplication No. 41 of 1969 and S.C.A. No. 1774 of 1969.
\nC.   K. Daphtary, Suresh A. Shroff, P. C. Bhartari and O. C.
\nMathur, for the appellants (in both the appeals).
\nH.   R. Gokhale, N. H. Gurshani and N. N. Keswani, for\tres-
\npondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).
\nB.   D.\t Sharma\t and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.  2\t (in
\nboth the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
856<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nCivil Appeal No. 2130 of 1967
\nShah,  J.  The High Court of Bombay dismissed  in  limine  a
\npetition  filed\t by the Century Spinning  Manufacturing\t Co.
\nLtd. hereinafter called ‘the Company’for the issue of a writ
\nrestraining  the respondent Municipality from enforcing\t the
\nprovisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act 40 of\t1965
\nrelating  to  the levy, assessment, collection\trecovery  of
\noctroi and in particular s. 105 and Ss. 136 to 144  thereof,
\nand  from enforcing the Maharashtra Municipalities  (Octroi)
\nRules, 1967, and from acting upon resolutions passed by\t the
\nMunicipal Council dated September 9, 1968 and’ September 13,
\n1968, and from levying, assessing, collecting, recovering or
\ntaking\tany other step under the Act, rules or\tthe  resolu-
\ntions  and  for -an order restraining  the  Municipality  of
\nUlhasnagar from levying, assessing, collecting any octroi on
\nthe  goods imported by the Company within the limits of\t the
\nMunicipal  Council for a period of 7 years from the date  of
\nits  first imposition.\tWith special leave, the Company\t has
\nappealed ‘against, the order rejecting the petition.
\nThe Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,
\n1913.\tIt set up its factory in 1956, within the limits  of
\nvillage\t Shahad, Taluka Kalyan on a site purchased from\t the
\nState of Bombay, and within an area known as the ‘Industrial
\nArea’.\tNo octroi duty was then payable in respect of  goods
\nimported by the Company into the Industrial Area for use  in
\nthe  manufacture of its products.  On October 30, 1959,\t the
\nGovernment  of Bombay issued a notification  announcing\t its
\nintention to constitute a Municipality for certain villages,
\nincluding  the\tIndustrial  Area.   The\t Company  and  other
\nmanufacturers  who  had set up their  plants  and  factories
\nobjected to the proposed constitution of the Municipal Area.
\nOn  September 20, 1960, the State of Maharashtra  (successor
\nto   the   State  of  Bombay)\tpublished   a\tnotification
\nconstituting with effect from April 1, 1960 the Municipality
\nincluding  the\tarea  in  which\t the  Industrial  Area\t was
\nincluded.  Representations were then made by the Company and
\nother  manufacturers for excluding the Industrial Area\tfrom
\nthe  Ulhasnagar Municipal District Area.  On April 27,\t1962
\nthe Government of Maharashtra (the new State of\t Maharashtra
\nhaving been constituted under the Bombay Reorganization Act,
\n1960)  proclaimed that the Industrial Area be excluded\tfrom
\nthe Municipal jurisdiction.  The District Municipality\tthen
\nmade a representation to the Government of Maharashtra\tthat
\nthe  proclamation dated April 27, 1962, be withdrawn by\t the
\nGovernment.  The Municipality agreed to exempt the  existing
\nfactories  viz., the Company and other\tmanufacturers  whose
\nfactories  were\t then existing in the Industrial  Area\tfrom
\npayment of octroi for a period of seven years from the\tdate
\nof  levy  of octroi and for exempting new  industrial  units
\nfrom payment of octroi for
\n 8 5 7
\na  similar  period  from the  date  of\testablishment.\t The
\nGovernment  of\tMaharashtra acceded to the  request  of\t the
\nMunicipality to retain the Industrial Area within the  local
\nlimits of the Municipality.\n<\/p>\n
On  August  24,\t 1963, the District  Municipality  passed  a
\nresolution to implement the agreement.\tIt was resolved that
\nthe  Municipality  “agrees  to\tgive  a\t concession  to\t the
\nexisting  factories  by exempting them from the\t payment  of
\noctroi\tfor  a period of 7 years from the date\tof  levy  of
\noctroi\ttax and by exempting new factories from the  payment
\nof  the octroi tax for a period of 7 years from the date  of
\ntheir  establishment  -as recommended by the  Government  of
\nMaharashtra”.\n<\/p>\n
On October 31, 1963, the Government of Maharashtra issued  a
\nnotification  withdrawing the proclamation dated  April\t 27,
\n1962, and the Industrial Area became part of the  Ulhasnagar
\nMunicipal   District.\tRelying\t upon  the   assurance\t and
\nundertaking  given  by the Municipality the  Company  claims
\nthat   it   had\t expanded  its\tactivities   and   commenced
\nmanufacturing  new products by, setting up additional  plant
\nwhich it would not have done “but for the concessions given,
\nassurances and representations made and agreement arrived at
\non May 21, 1963”.\n<\/p>\n
On September 10, 1965, the Legislature of the State of Maha-
\nrashtra\t enacted  the Maharashtra Municipalities  Act  which
\nrepealed  the Bombay District Municipal Act 3 of  1901.\t the
\nnotification  declaring\t the  area of  the  former  District
\nMunicipality of Ulhasnagar into the Ulhasnagar\tMunicipality
\nbecame\teffective  as from June 15,  1966.   The  Ulhasnagar
\nMunicipality  took  over  as  successor\t to  the  Ulhasnagar
\nDistrict  Municipality, the assets and the affairs  of\tthat
\nbody.\tOn  September 9, 1968  the  Ulhasnagar\tMunicipality
\nresolved  “to levy minimum rates of octroi duty as shown  in
\ncolumns 4 and 6 on all items shown in Sch.  1 to the Rules”,
\nand by resolution dated September 13, 1968, the Municipality
\n‘adopted with effect from January 1, 1969, the rates for the
\nimposition  of\toctroi duty on the goods imported  for\tuse,
\nsale and consumption within the Municipal Council limits.
\nAt a special meeting held on December 24, 1968, the  Munici-
\npal Council considered the letters written by the Government
\nof  Maharashtra\t dated November 22, 1968  and  December\t 10,
\n1968,  drawing\tthe  attention of the  Municipality  to\t the
\ncircumstances in which the Industrial Area was included\t and
\nretained  in  the local limits of  the\tUlhasnagar  District
\nMunicipality and continued to reman within the local  limits
\nof the Municipality, and “advised the Municipality to pass a
\nresolution   confirming\t such  exemption  and\thonour\t the
\ncommitments  of its predecessor.” The  Municipality  ignored
\nthe  advice and resolved that the Government of\t Maharashtra
\nbe  informed that the Municipality would consider afresh  on
\nSup.CI(NP)70-10
\n858<\/span>
\nmerits any representation of a tax-payer for exemption\tfrom
\npayment\t of octroi, and if any such representation was\tmade
\nby the factories situate in the Industrial Area, the Council
\nwould  consider\t the same and take such action as  it  would
\ndeem fit.  Thereafter the Municipality sought to levy octroi
\nduty  and to recover from the Company octroi duty  amounting
\nto approximately Rs. 15 lakhs per annum.
\nThe Company moved a petition before the High Court of Bombay
\nunder  Art.  226 of the Constitution for the writs  set\t out
\nearlier seeking to restrain the Ulhasnagar Municipality from
\nenforcing the octroi Rules.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court may, in exercise of its discretion,  decline
\nto ,exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art.\t 226
\nof  the Constitution.  But the discretion is judicial  :  if
\nthe petition makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious, or
\nprima  facie unjust, or may not appropriately be tried in  a
\npetition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the Court may
\ndecline to entertain the petition.  But a party claiming  to
\nbe aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority  on
\nthe plea that the action is unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary
\nor  unjust, is entitled to a hearing of its petition on\t the
\nmerits.\t  Apparently the petition filed by the\tCompany\t did
\nnot   raise   any   complicated\t questions   of\t  fact\t for
\ndetermination, -and the claim could not be characterised  as
\nfrivolous, vexatious or unjust.\t The High Court has given no
\nreasons\t for  dismissing the petition in limine,  and  on  a
\nconsideration  of  the\taverments in the  petition  and\t the
\nmaterials placed before the Court we are satisfied that\t the
\nCompany\t was  ,entitled to have its  grievance\tagainst\t the
\naction\tof the Municipality, which was prima  facie  unjust,
\ntried.\n<\/p>\n
The Company pleaded that the, Ulhasnagar Municipality had”
\nentered\t into a solemn arrangement” not to levy octroi\tduty
\nfor aperiod of seven years from the date of its\t imposition.
\nThe  evidence relating to the undertaking was  contained  in
\npublic\trecords.  The Government of Maharashtra advised\t the
\nMunicipality that it was acting in violation of the terms of
\nthat  undertaking.   By\t its  resolution  the\tMunicipality
\ndeclined to abide by the undertaking of itspredecessor.
\nThere\tis  undoubtedly\t a  clear  distinction\t between   a
\nrepresen`tation\t of  an existing fact and  a  representation
\nthat  something will be done in future.\t The former may,  if
\nit  amounts to a representation as to some fact alleged\t -at
\nthe time to be actually in existence, raise an estoppel,  if
\nanother\t person\t alters\t his  position\trelying\t upon\tthat
\nrepresentation.\t  A  representation that something  will  be
\ndone  in  the future may result in a  contract,\t if  another
\nperson to whom it is
\n 859<\/span>
\naddressed  acts\t upon it.  A representation  that  something
\nwill  be done in future is not a representation that  it  is
\ntrue  when  made.  But between a representation\t of  a\tfact
\nwhich  is untrue and a representation-express or  implied-to
\ndo  something  in future, there is no clear  antithesis.   A
\nrepresentation\tthat sotmething will be done in\t future\t may
\ninvolve an existing intention to act in future in the manner
\nrepresented.  If the representation is acted upon by another
\nperson it may, unless the statute governing the person\tmak-
\ning  the  representation provides otherwise,  result  in  an
\nagreement  enforceable at law; if the statute requires\tthat
\nthe  agreement shall be in a certain form, no  contract\t may
\nresult from the representation and acting thereupon but\t the
\nlaw is not powerless to raise in appropriate cases an equity
\nagainst him to compel performance of the obligation  arising
\nout of his representation.\n<\/p>\n
Public\tbodies are as much bound as private  individuals  to
\ncarry  out  representations of -facts and promises  made  by
\nthem,  relying\ton which other persons have  -altered  their
\nposition to their prejudice.  The obligation arising against
\nan  individual\tout  of his representation  amounting  to  a
\npromise\t may be enforced ex contractu by a person  who\tacts
\nupon  the  promise : when the law requires that\t a  contract
\nenforceable at law against a public body shall be in certain
\nform or be executed in the manner prescribed by statute, the
\nobligation  may\t be if the contract be not in that  form  be
\nenforced  against  it in appropriate cases in  equity.\t ‘In
\nUnion  of India & Ors. v. Mls.\tIndoAfghan Agencies  Ltd.<\/a>(1)
\nthis  Court held that the Government is not exempt from\t the
\nequity\tarising\t out of the acts done by citizens  to  their
\nprejudice, relying upon the representations as to its future
\nconduct\t made by the Government.  This Court held  that\t the
\nfollowing observations made by Denning, J., in Robertson v.
\nMinister of Pensions(1) applied in India
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   “The
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Crown
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   cannot
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   escape
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   by
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   saying
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   estoppe
\nls
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   do
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   not
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   bind
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Crown
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   for
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   doctrin
\ne
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   has
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   long
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   been
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   explode
\nd.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Nor
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   can
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Crown
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   escape
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   by
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   praying
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   aid
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   doctrin
\ne
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   executi
\nve
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   necessi
\nty,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   is,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   doctrin
\ne
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Crown
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   cannot
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   bind
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   itself
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   so
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   as
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   fetter
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   its
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   future
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   executi
\nve
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   action.\n<\/p>\n
,
\nWe  are in this case not concerned to deal with the  question
\nwhether\t Denning, L.J., was right in extending the rule to  a
\ndifferent class of cases as in Falmouth Boat Construction Co.
\nLtd. v. Howell(1) where he observed at p. 542 :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whenever Government officers in their dealings
\n\t      with
\n\t      a\t  subject  take\t on  themselves\t  to   assume
\n\t      authority in a
\n\t      (1)\t[1968]\t    2\t    S.C.R.\t 366.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) [1949] 1 K.B. 227.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   [1950] All.\t E.R. 538.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8 6 0
\n\t      matter with which the subject is concerned,  he
\n\t      is  entitled  to\trely  on  their\t having\t  the
\n\t      authority which they assume.  He does not know,
\n\t      and  cannot be expected to ]mow, the limits  of
\n\t\t\t    their  authority, and he ought not to
\nsuffer\tif
\n\t      they exceed it.  ”\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be sufficient to observe that in  appeal  from\t that
\njudgment  (Howell  v. Falmouth Boat Construction  do.\tLtd.)
\nLord Simonds observed after referring to the observations  of
\nDenning, L.J.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  illegality of an act is the same  whether
\n\t      the action has been misled by an assumption  of
\n\t      authority\t on the part of a government  officer
\n\t      however-\t   high\t    or\t   low\t   in\t  the
\n\t      hierarchy………..  The question  is  whether
\n\t      the  character  of an act done in\t force\tof  a
\n\t      statutory\t prohibition is affected by the\t fact
\n\t      that  it\thad  been  induced  by\ta  misleading
\n\t      assumption  of  authority.  In my\t opinion  the
\n\t      answer is clearly : No.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If our nascent democracy is to thrive different standards  of
\nconduct\t  for  the  people  and\t the  public  bodies   cannot
\nordinarily be permitted.  A public body is, in our  judgment,
\nnot exempt from liability to carry out its obligation arising
\nout  of\t representations  made by it  relying  upon  which  a
\ncitizen has altered his position to his prejudice.
\nMr.  Gokhale  appearing on behalf of the  Municipality\turged
\nthat  the  petition filed by the  Company  apparently  raised
\nquestions  of fact which in the view of the High Court\tcould
\nnot  appropriately  be tried in the exercise  of  the  extra-
\nordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226.  But the High Court has
\nnot  said  so, and on a review of the averments made  in  the
\npetition this argument cannot be sustained.  Merely because a
\nquestion  of  fact  is raised, the High\t Court\twill  got  be
\njustified  in  requiring  the party to\tseek  relief  by  the
\nsomewhat lengthfiy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil
\nsuit against ‘a public body.  The questions of fact raised by
\nthe petition in this case are elementary.
\nThe order passed by the High Court is set aside and the\t case
\nis  remanded  to the High Court with a direction that  it  be
\nreadmitted  to\tthe file and be dealt with  and\t disposed  of
\naccording  to  law.  The High Court will issue\trule  to  the
\nMunicipality  and the State and dispose of the petition.   We
\nrecommend that the case may be taken up for early hearing.
\nWe  had during the pendency of the appeal in this Court\t made
\nan order restraining the levy of octroi duty.  We extend  the
\noperation  of  the order for a fortnight from  this  date  to
\nenable the
\n 861<\/span>
\nCompany\t to  move the High Court for an\t appropriate  interim
\norder  pending\thearing and disposal of\t the  writ  petition.
\nThere  will be no order as to costs in this Court.  Costs  in
\nthe High Court will be costs in the cause.
\nSince  we  have\t granted special,  leave  against  the\torder
\ndismissing  the\t petition,  we do not deem  it\tnecessary  to
\nconsider  whether  the order rejecting\tthe  application  for
\ncertificate was erroneous.  Civil Appeal No. 2131 of 1969  is
\ntherefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\n<\/p>\n
862<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1021, 1970 SCR (2) 854 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: CENTURY SPINNING & MANUFACTURING COMPANYLTD. AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE ULHASNAGAR- MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/02\/1970 BENCH: SHAH, […]<\/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-81965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCentury Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - 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\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-27T03:52:46+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T03:52:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2364,\"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\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\",\"name\":\"Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T03:52:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - 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\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-27T03:52:46+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970","datePublished":"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T03:52:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970"},"wordCount":2364,"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\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970","name":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing ... vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal ... on 27 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T03:52:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/century-spinning-manufacturing-vs-the-ulhasnagar-municipal-on-27-february-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Century Spinning & Manufacturing … vs The Ulhasnagar- Municipal … on 27 February, 1970"}]},{"@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\/81965","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=81965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}