Veeraswami, C. J.- On the ground of excessive delegation, section 119 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is attacked. There are two taxes designated as Agricultural Development Tax and Village Development Tax, with which we are concerned. Both the taxes have been raised for the specific purpose of laying roads in the village. Section 119 authorises a village Panchayat to levy such taxes. Sub-section (3) says that, subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as the case may be, the Panchayat may levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose. This power is, of course, subject to rules to be made and with the sanction of the Inspector. While granting such sanction, the Inspector may also prescribe restrictions and conditions. By reason of the rule-making power, rules have been made by G.O. Ms. No. 184, L.A. dated 1st January, 1962. Rule 1 (b) mentions the specific purposes for which the taxes can be levied. One of them is the construction of a road or bridge or culvert in the village. 2. The two points urged for the appellant are: (1) that the fixation of rates has been left to the Panchayat which amounted to excessive delegation; and (2) that the tax is not related to agricultural purposes. As to the second point, there is no argument addressed to us that the tax is in the nature of fee and, that being so, the contention has no merit. The tax raised may be devoted to any purpose of a public character. 3. As to the first contention, under the District Municipalities Act and also the City Corporation Act, though the Legislature has authorised the levy of property tax, the rate of tax has been left to the Municipal Council. No doubt, the Legislature may choose to impose an upper limit for rates. But that is not, in our opinion, a condition precedent for the validity of the power of the Municipal Council or Panchayat to fix the rate. The rate of tax fixed in these cases is also not excessive and it appears to be reasonable. 4. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs. 100 in each case. S.J. ---------- Appeal dismissed. Note:- The judgment under appeal was that of Ismail, J. which was as follows: (W.P. 3410. The rate of tax fixed in these cases is also not excessive and it appears to be reasonable. 4. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs. 100 in each case. S.J. ---------- Appeal dismissed. Note:- The judgment under appeal was that of Ismail, J. which was as follows: (W.P. 3410. and 3411 of 1967, dated 17th November, 1969.) The only point raised in these writ petitions is as regards the validity of sub-section (3) of section 119 of the Madras Panchayat Act (XXXV of 1958) hereinafter "referred to as the Act ". The sub-section is as follows: " (3) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed and with the sanction of the Inspector and subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as may be imposed by him either at the time of granting sanction or later, the Panchayat may also levy in the village or town as the case may be a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose." The only ground of challenge to the validity of this sub-section is that in regard to the matter of taxation the essential legislative function is to fix the rate of tax or to prescribe the maximum subject to which alone the tax can be levied and that this essentil legislative function has been delegated to the Panchayat and to other authorities by the Legislature and therefore the sub-section is unconstitutional. 6. Since the sub-section itself refers to the rules as may be prescribed, it is necessary to refer to the rules for the purpose of testing the validity of this argument. By G.O. Ms. No 184, Local Administration, dated 22nd January, 1962 the Government have framed rules in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 119 and clause (xx) of sub-section (2) of section 178 of the Act. The rules are elaborate in nature and it is desirable to extract the entire rules in this behalf: " The tax on agricultural land in any village shall be leviable every half-year for a specific purpose, such as — (1) (a) repairs to irrigation channels and tanks in respect of which no kudimaramat fee is levied under sub-section (2) of section 85 of the Madras Panchayat Act (XXXV of 1958). (b) construction, maintenance, repair, extension or improvement of waterworks or drainage work ; (c) lighting by gas or electricity ; (d) construction of a road, or a bridge or culvert ; or (e) construction of buildings intended to be used for Cultural , Educational or Medical and other allied purposes ; or (f) protection of trees, plants and crops. (g) raising matching contribution for any Programme of development specified in the panchayat Department Schematic Budget or that may be included in it from time to time and the levy of such tax shall take effect from the first day of the half-year following that in which it is sanctioned; (k) Construction or maintenance of Panchayat soil conservation works: Provided that the tax for the purpose specified in clause (b) shall be leviable on such agricultural land as is benefited by the construction or maintenance of works referred to in that clause. (2)The rate of tax shall be on the basis of the extent of the land, but the Panchayat may adopt different rates, for wet land, well irrigated land and dry land so as to be commensurate with the value of the land. (a) Every proposal for the levy of the tax shall be submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer through the Panchayat Extension Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward it to the sanctioning authority. (b) Every such proposal shall be accompanied by, (i) a resolution of the Panchayat passed at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and supported by not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat specifying the purpose for which, the rate at which, and the period for which the tax is to be levied; (ii) a statement showing the receipts and charges under the various heads of accounts for the three years preceding the year in which the proposal is made ; (iii) the budget estimate for the year is which the proposal is made ; (iv) the particulars of the approximate or estimated cost of the work in respect of which the tax is proposed to be levied and the amount of tax likely to be realised in a half-year. (3) The rate at which and the period for which the tax shall be levied shall be specified in the order sanctioning the levy of the tax. (3) The rate at which and the period for which the tax shall be levied shall be specified in the order sanctioning the levy of the tax. The period specified in the order may be extended from time to time if necessary, in order that the purpose for which tax is levied may be fulfilled: Provided that the panchayat may for sufficient reason, and with the approval of the sanctioning authority, alter the rate, suspend or cancel the levy of the tax within the period so specified in the order. (4) The proceeds of the tax shall form a separate fund, earmarked for the purpose for which it is levied and a separate account shall be maintained for the transactions relating to the fund. (5) The rules issued under Clause (xx) and (xxii) of sub-section (2) of section 178 of the Madras Panchayats Act, etc., regarding the assessment and collection of taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to the assessment and collection of this tax." It will be seen that the sub-section itself provides for the following safeguards: (1) levy of the tax must be subject to the rules as may be prescribed by the Government ; (2) the levy must be with the sanction of the Inspector and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be imposed by him ; (3) the levy must be for a specific purpose. In addition to these three safeguards contained in the statute, itself, there are the following safeguards contained in the rules framed under the sub-section: Rule 1 extracted above refers to the purposes for which alone the tax can be levied. Rule 2 deals with the rate and quantum of tax. In addition to these three safeguards contained in the statute, itself, there are the following safeguards contained in the rules framed under the sub-section: Rule 1 extracted above refers to the purposes for which alone the tax can be levied. Rule 2 deals with the rate and quantum of tax. The safeguards provided by this rule are that the proposal for levy of tax shall be presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer through the Panchayat Extension Officer; (2) the proposal shall be accompanied by a resolution of the Panchayat passed at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and supported by not less than one half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat ; (3) the resolution must specify the purpose for which, the rate at which and period for which the tax is to be levied ; (4) the proposal must be accompanied by a statement showing the receipts and charges under the various heads of accounts for the three years preceding the year in which the proposal is made ; (5) the proposal must also be accompanied by the budget estimate for the year in which the proposal is made ; (6) it must further be accompanied by the particulars of the approximate or estimated cost of the work in respect of which the tax is proposed to be levied and the amount of tax likely to be realised in a half year. 7. The Inspector while sanctioning the levy shall have to specify the rate at which and the period for which the tax shall be levied. Though a power is granted to the Inspector to extend the period from time to time in order that the purpose for which tax is levied may be fulfilled, there is also a proviso under which the Panchayat may for sufficient reasons and with the approval of the sanctioning authority, alter the rate, suspend or cancel the levy of the tax within the period specified in the order. One further safeguard is that the proceeds of the tax shall form a separate fund earmarked for the purpose for which it is levied and a separate account shall be maintained for the transactions relating to the fund. These safeguards are sufficient to ensure that the tax levied by the local body is a reasonable one and related to the purpose for which it is levied. These safeguards are sufficient to ensure that the tax levied by the local body is a reasonable one and related to the purpose for which it is levied. The sanctioning authority is given power to scrutinise whether the expenditure for the particular purpose could not be met out of the general revenue of the Panchayat without imposing this special levy. It is only for this purpose the proposal has to be accompanied by a statement showing the receipts and charges under the various heads of accounts for the three years, preceding the year in which the proposal is made and the budget estimate for the year in which the proposal is made and the particulars of the approximate or estimated cost of the work in respect of which the tax is proposed to be levied, and the amount of tax likely to be realised in a half year. Consequently, I am of the opinion that even though the statutory provision itself does not prescribe either the rate of tax or the maximum rate subject to which alone the tax can be levied, still necessary legislative purpose and intent has been disclosed and the safeguards against unreasonable levy have been provided. The decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. B.C.S. & W. Mills1, fully covers and applies to this, case. In that case in paragraph 29 of the majority judgment, it has been stated as follows: " What form the guidance should take is again a matter which cannot be stated in general terms. It will depend upon the circumstances of each statute under consideration; in some cases guidance in broad general terms may be enough, in other cases more detailed guidance may be necessary. As we are concerned in the present case with the field of taxation, let us look at the nature of guidance necessary in this field. The guidance may take the form of providing maximum rates of tax upto which a local body may be given the discretion to make its choice, or it may take the form of providing: for consultation with the people of the local area and then fixing the rates after such consultation. The guidance may take the form of providing maximum rates of tax upto which a local body may be given the discretion to make its choice, or it may take the form of providing: for consultation with the people of the local area and then fixing the rates after such consultation. It may also take the form of subjecting the rate to be fixed by the local body to the approval of Government which acts as a watch-dog on the actions of the local body in this matter on behalf of the Legislature. There may be other ways in which guidance may be provided. But the purpose of guidance whatsoever it may be, the manner thereof, is to see that the local body fixes a reasonable rate of taxation for the local area concerned. So long as the Legislature has made provision to achieve that reasonable rates of taxation are fixed by local bodies, whatever may be the method employed for this purpose, provided it is effective it may be said that there is guidance for the purpose of fixation of rates of taxation. The reasonableness of rates may be ensured by fixing a maximum beyond which the local bodies may not go. It may be ensured by providing safeguards laying down the procedure for consulting the wishes of the local inhabitants. It may consist in the supervision by Government of the rate of taxation by local bodies. So long as the law has provided a method by which the local body can be controlled and there is provision to see that reasonable rates are fixed it can be said that there is guidance in the matter of fixing rates for local taxation. As we have already said, there is preminently a case for delegating the fixation of rates of tax to the local body and so long as the Legislature has provided a method for seeing that rates fixed are reasonable, be it in one form or another, it may be said that there is guidance for fixing rates of taxation and the power assigned to the local body for fixing the rates is not uncontrolled and uncanalised. It is on the basis of these principles, that we have to consider the Act with which we are concerned.“ The Judgment after referring to the terms of section 150 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the validity of which was challenged, then proceeded to enumerate the circumstances which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, afforded reasonable guidance for the levy of the tax The first circumstance which the Supreme Court pointed out was that the delegation had been made to an elected body responsible to the people including those who paid taxes. The Supreme Court stated:” The councillors have to go for election every four years. This means that if they have behaved unreasonably and the inhabitants of the area so consider it they can be thrown out at the ensuing elections. This is in our opinion a great check on the elected councillors acting unreasonably and fixing unreasonable rates of taxation. This is a domocratic method of bringing to book the elected representatives who act unreasonably in such matters......This check which is inherent in an elected municipal body must enter into the verdict whether the delegation to such a body even though it is wide in extent, can be upheld on the basis that this is a method of controlling the actions of the elected body and setting a limit to which it can go in the matter of taxation even ‘hough no maximum as such is provided in the Act“. The second circumstance referred to by the Supreme Court on” the control on the limit of taxation “ is to be found in the purposes of the Act. ‘ ‘he present case stands on a better footing because the statute itself con-templates that the tax can be levied only tor specific purposes and these specific purposes are enumerated in the rules framed under the statute. The third circumstance indicated by the Supreme Court is the necessity of adopting budget estimates each year as laid down in the other provisions of the Act. In the present case, there is a safeguard provided by the rules in the form of the requirement that the Panchayat should send along with the proposal to the sanctioning authority, its budget estimate for the year in which the proposal is made. In the present case, there is a safeguard provided by the rules in the form of the requirement that the Panchayat should send along with the proposal to the sanctioning authority, its budget estimate for the year in which the proposal is made. The fourth circumstance indicated by the Supreme Court is that the maximum rates fixed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation at its meeting, by a resolution had to be submitted to the Government for its sanction and without such sanction there can be no imposition of tax. In the present case, the proposal for the taxation has to be submitted to the Inspector through the Revenue Divisional Officer and without his sanction, the tax cannot be levied. The fifth and the last circumstance which the Supreme Court referred to is that” there is another check on the power of the Corporation which is inherent in the matter of exercise of power by subordinate public representative bodies such as municipal boards. In such cases if the act of such a body in the exercise of the power conferred on it by the law is unreasonable the Courts can hold that such exercise is void for unreasonableness.‘‘ 8. All these circumstances pointed out by the Supreme Court will clearly apply to the present case and in the light of that judgment, it cannot be contended that section 119 (3) of of the Act is unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation. Consequently, the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails. The Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be; no order as to costs.