On June 11, 1965, the Standing Committee of the Raichur Municipal Council resolved to levy octroi duty according to Sch. II under s. 94 of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964. It was rec'.ite~ in the resolution that the confirmation of the general body be obtamed. The genera? body unanimously approved the resolution of the D Standing Committee.' On October 27, 1965 the notification under s. 95 of the Act inviting objections from the public was published; 110 objections were received. On February 26, 1966 there was a special general body meeting and it was resolved to levy octroi with effect from April I, 1966. This resolution was however amended by modification of· its second paragraph on March 25, 1966. Approval to this modification was obtained at first by circulation to the members on March 3L, 1966 the minutes of the meeting dated February 26, 1966 E and the adoption of the resolution modifying the second paragraph by circulation on March 25, 1966, were read, heard and confirmed unanimously. As required by s. 123 of the Act the model bye-laws framed by Government were adopted but the table of rates in model bye-law 16 'relating to the levy of storage fee and charges on goods placed in the bonded warehouses was left blank. The. rates were fixed by the Council by its resolution of March 31, 1966. On April 16, 1966 sanction of the Government under s. 96 of the Act to the levy p of octroi and the adoption of model bye-laws was given and on May 3, 1966, the notification under s. 97 of the Act imposing octroi duty under Sch. II and adopting the bye-Jaws was published. The resploI!dents who were dealers in cloth in Raichur moved the High Court of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that though octroi had been properly levied its collection was unauthorised owing to defects in the bye-laws adopted. The municipality G appealed. The following questions fell for consideration: (i) whether the resolution levying the octroi and the subsequent modifica' tion of the said resolution were procedurally valid (ii) whether the fixation of rates for the purpose of model bye-law 16 was validly made. the procedure in s. 324('4) and (5) not having been followed· (iii) whether the bye-raws were unenforceable fur the reason that they did not fix the 'time for the PUrPOSe of bye-laws 23 27 and 28 and did not give a list of articles for the purpose of bye-laws 33 B to 36.
