Civil Appeals Nos. 1388-1390 with C.A. Nos. 92-125 of 1975, 201 of 1975, 1223 of 1975, 1352 of 1975, 2363 ; 2912 1981 of 1980, 47-66 ; S.L.P.(C) Nos. 9533 of 1984, 9416 and 10628 ; C.M.P. Nos. 10327 and 30308 1988; 33826 1984 of 1981, C.A. Nos. 1941 ; 2365 and 2366 1980 of 1981

4th October, 1994

Cases Cited:
AIR 1964 SC 1486 : (1964) 7 SCR 17 [Para 3]
AIR 1963 SC 1760 : (1964) 3 SCR 787 [Para 3]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT:-These Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions are filed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court delivered on 14th March, 1975, in Civil Writ petition No. 342 of 1969, State of Andhra Pradesh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, and against other orders of the same High Court which follow the aforementioned judgment. The respondents in these various Civil Appeals and Special leave Petitions are the States of Andhra Prudish. Punjab, Tripura, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Orissa, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir and West Bengal. All these matters can conveniently be dealt with together.

2. Each of the States has immovable property within the Union Territory of Delhi. It is the contention of the States that they are exempt from the payment of property tax leviable under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as applicable to Delhi by virtue of the exemption granted to the property of a State by Art. 289(1) of the Constitution of India. The contention of the States was upheld by the judgment aforementioned, which was, in the main, founded upon the option of this Court in R.E. The Bill to amend S.20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and S.3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (1964) 3 SCR 787: (AIR 1963 SC 1760).

3. Having duly considered the majority opinion in the Presidential Reference aforementioned, we find that the point at issue in these matters is covered thereby. The opinion was accepted by a Constitutional Bench of this Court hearing a litigation inter partes. This was the decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. v. Income-tax Officer, (1964) 7 SCR 17: (AIR 1964 SC 1486). We are bounded by this decision.

4. This, however, does not detract from the plausibility of the contentions advanced before us on behalf of appellant and the intervener, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. These contentions, based upon Constitutional provisions, were not advanced in the cases aforementioned and require consideration. Large financial stakes are involved. Accordingly, these matters shall be placed before a nine-Judge Bench which shall decide whether the concerned observations made in the Sea Customs case require reconsideration.

Order Accordingly