Holding

The Supreme Court held that the relief sought can be granted by a High Court under Article 226, and therefore the petition under Article 32 must be dismissed and the parties directed to approach the High Court.

Summary

The petitioners, a company and its secretary, challenged a tax demand order issued by the Deputy Assessor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, seeking a writ of certiorari under Article 32 of the Constitution. They asked the Supreme Court to quash the composite tax demand of Rs.14,07,328. The Court examined whether such relief falls within its original jurisdiction under Article 32 or should be sought in the High Court under Article 226. It held that the scope of power of High Courts under Article 226 is broader and the relief sought can be granted by a High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition without addressing its merits and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate High Court, emphasizing the need to preserve the High Courts' jurisdiction and reduce the Supreme Court's backlog.

Issues considered

Whether a petition under Article 32 seeking certiorari against a municipal tax demand should be entertained by the Supreme Court or directed to the High Court under Article 226.
Whether the relief sought falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or is more appropriately within the wider powers of High Courts under Article 226.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 32

Subjects

Article 32Article 226jurisdictionoriginal jurisdictioncertiorarimunicipal taxSupreme CourtHigh Courtcivil miscellaneous petition

Judgment

P.N. KUMAR AND ANOTHER
A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

NOVEMBER 2, 1987

~
B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Order issued by the Deputy Assessor and Collector ~!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.
c The Deputy Assessor and Collector of the Assessment and CoUec·
tion 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
D 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
,,..
E {:onstitution, 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
F 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 ~
J
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
G 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 Jurisdiction, which is a
H time consuming process, can be avoided, and the time saved by this
732
P.N. KUMAR v. M.C.D. 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] A

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 B
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 shoulil 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] C

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, D
with wide experience in handling different kinds of cases. The lawyers
there are fully aware of every legislation in their States. [734Gl

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Petition
No. 8678 of 1986.
E
IN

Writ Petition No. 9144 of 1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
F

~--
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: G
ORDER

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 direc-
tion quashing the order No. Tax/HQ/Spl. Cell/83-1948 dated 4-8-1983 H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C.R.

A issued by the Deputy .'\,ssessor 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 ~
B tax and education tax and making any other mder 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
C whether the above petition under Article 32 of the Con.stitution 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.

We are of the view that this petition should be disposed of with-
D out 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
E 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 b"
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 w~y
F 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.
G
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.

H 5. Our High Courts are High Courts. Each High Court has its
P.N. KUMAR v. M.C.D. 735

own hig\l traditions. They have judges of eminence who have initia- A
tive, necessary skills and enthusiasm. Their capacity should be harnes-
sed 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 B
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
Sta.tes.

7. This Court has no time today even to dispose of cases which C
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.
D
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 a
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.
E
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 be avoided.
F
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 pa"
this order.

S.L. Petition disposed or.