Union Of India And Anr v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi And Ors

Union Of India And Anr v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi And Ors

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 3646 Of 1996 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18788 Of 1995] | 16-02-1996

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. The respondent Municipality had made a consolidated outstanding demand for a sum of Rs 1, 01, 501 for years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 16-12-1993 towards the service charges. The appellants challenged the validity of the demand. On reference, the Division Bench in the impugned order dated 15-5-1995 in CWJC No. 3223 of 1994 upheld the demand of the Municipality. Thus this appeal by special leave

4. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Union of India v. Purna Municipal Council had held that Section 135 of the Railways Act is subject to the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondent Municipality was restrained from demanding any payment by way of service charges from the Railways. Shri M.P. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, sought to rely on clause (4) of Section 135 of the Railways Act which contemplates a contract between the Central Government and the Municipality and payment thereof on the basis of the said contract. In this case the contract now sought to be relied upon is only to relieve distress warrant pending disposal of the dispute in the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be construed that there is any contract between the Union of India and the Municipality. In view of the fact that the Municipality has no right to demand service charges from the Union of India, the demand made by the Municipality is clearly ultra vires its power. It is true that earlier WP No. 2844 of 1992 was filed and was dismissed by the High Court and the special leave was refused by this Court on the ground of gross delay

5. It is now settled law that the summary dismissal does not constitute res judicata for deciding the controversy. Moreover, this being a recurring liability which is ultra vires the power, earlier summary dismissal of the case does not operate as a res judicata6. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
6. Writ is issued as prayed for. Whatever amount has been paid by now cannot be recovered from the Municipality. No costs.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY
Eq Citations
  • 1996 (2) SCALE 412
  • JT 1996 (3) SC 171
  • 1996 (1) CTC 435
  • [1996] 2 SCR 761
  • (1996) 7 SCC 542
  • (1996) 2 MLJ 48 (SC)
  • LQ/SC/1996/422
Head Note

Constitution of India — Arts. 285, 131(1) and 136 — Res judicata — Summary dismissal of case — Effect of — Held, summary dismissal does not constitute res judicata for deciding the controversy — Moreover, in case of recurring liability which is ultra vires the power, earlier summary dismissal of case does not operate as res judicata — Railways Act, 1989 — S. 135 — Ultra vires — Constitution of India — Art. 285 — Res judicata