CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court (consisting of on" of us) has referred to Full Bench the following two questions of law: (i) Is a notification published under sub-sec (1) of S. 97 of the Karnataka municipalities Act 1964, invalid if the resolutions sanctioned u S. 96 with all the modifications subject to which the sanction is given, have not been set out in that notification or does sub-sec (2) of S. 97 of the act prohibit any enquiry into the legality of such notification ? and (ii) For water supplied by a Municipal Council,, is it competent for it (the Municipal Council) under Cl (viii) of sub-sec (1) of S. 94 of the Karnataka municipalities Act 1964, to levy on an individual or individuals water rate or water rates in the form of tax assessed on buildings and lands and also to charge him or them for such supply of water according to the the quantity used or according to the terms agreed with him or them? the ground on which the first of the above two questions, was referred is that there is conflict between the decision of a Divn Bench in Gopal shetty v. Channardyapatna Town Municipality, (1970) 1 Myslj. 278. on the one hand, and the decisions of Divn Benches in Menjanatha Shetty v. State of Mysore , (1971) 1 Mysljj. 27 and the Hupchand Hindumal v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 Myslj. 167. on the other. ( 2 ) THE ground on which the second of the aforesaid two questions, was referred, is that the Divn Bench before which the petition came up for hearing, was inclined to doubt the correctness of the decision of the single judge in WP. 3163 of 1970 and that of the Divn Bench in WA. 69 of 1974 affirming the decision of the single judge. We shall first take up the first of the aforesaid two questions. We may now look at the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Muncipalities Act ). Sec. 94 of the Municipalities Act sets out several taxes which the Municipal Council can impose with the sanction of the Government. Sec. 95 of the Municipalities Act sets out the procedure preliminary to imposing such taxes. We may now look at the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Muncipalities Act ). Sec. 94 of the Municipalities Act sets out several taxes which the Municipal Council can impose with the sanction of the Government. Sec. 95 of the Municipalities Act sets out the procedure preliminary to imposing such taxes. Before imposing a tax the Municipal Council is required to pass a resolution at its general meeting selecting one or other of the taxes specified in S. 94 of the Municipalities Act and specifying so far as may be applicable- (i) the classes of persons or of property or of both which the Municipal Council proposes to make liable, and any exemptions which it proposes to make; (ii) the amount or rate at which the Municipal Council proposes to assess each such class; and (iii) in the case of an octroi, the octroi stations. When such resolution has been passed, the Municipal Council is required to publish in the Official Ga?ettp and in such other manner as may be prescribed, a notice of such resolution in the prescribed form. After such resolution is published, any inhabitant of the Municipality objecting to the imposition of such Tax or to the amount or rate proposed, or to the classes of persons or property to be made liable thereto or to any exemptions proposed, may, within one month from the publication in the offil Gaz of the said notice, sed his objection in writing to the Mun Council. The Municipal Council is required to consider such objections either itself or authorise a committee to consider the same and to report thereon Unless the Municipal Council decides to abandon the proposed tax. it (the Municipal council) is required to submit to the Govt such objections with its opinion thereto and any modifications proposed to the original proposal for taxation. Sec. 96 of the Municipalities Act emowers the Government.- (i) to refuse to sanction the resolution submitted under S. 95; (ii) to return such resolution to the Municipal Council for further considpration; or (iii) to sanction such resolution without modification or subject to such modificaition not involving increase in the amount to be imposed or subject to such terms as the Govt deems fit. ( 3 ) THE relevant parts of S. 97 of the Municipalities Act, read:" 97. ( 3 ) THE relevant parts of S. 97 of the Municipalities Act, read:" 97. Publication of sanctioned resolutions with Notice.- (i) All resolutions sanctioned under S. 96 with all modifications subject to which the sanction is given shall be published by the Municipal council in the Official Gazette and in the Municipality for which they are prescribed together with a notice reciting the sanction and the date and number thereof, and the tax as prescribed by the resolution so published shalll, from a date which shall be specified in such notice and which shall not be less than one month from the publication of such notice, be imposed accordingly and the proceeds thereof shall be app- lied by the Municipal Council in accordance with all conditions, if any, subject to which under S. 96 the sanction was given. (The proviso to this sub-section is not relevant for our purpose ). (2) The publication of a notice under this section shall be conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. " ( 4 ) SUB-SEC (5) of S. 80 of the Municipalities Act. reads :" 80. Validity of Proceedings.- (5) No act done or proceeding taken under this Act shall be questioned on the ground merely of any defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. "in Gopala Shetty's case (1), the Municipal Council had published in the Official Gazette a notification purporting to be under S. 97 of the Municipalities Act, intimating that octroi would be levied with effect from a particular date. But tha,t notification did not set out the resolution of the municipal Council ag sanctioned by the Govt under S. 96 with modifications subject to which the sanction was given. But the notification stated that the rules relating to levy and recovery of octroi within the limits of chennarayyapatna Town Municipality adopted by the Municipal Council, had been duly sanctioned by the Govt and that the Municipal Council had resolved to give effect to those rules with effect from the date specified in that notification. But the notification stated that the rules relating to levy and recovery of octroi within the limits of chennarayyapatna Town Municipality adopted by the Municipal Council, had been duly sanctioned by the Govt and that the Municipal Council had resolved to give effect to those rules with effect from the date specified in that notification. One of the grounds on which the levy of octroi was challenged in that case, was that the aforesaid notification did not contain the resolution of the Municipal Council as sanctioned by the Govt under S r6 of the Municipalities Act, with modifications subject to which the sanction was given. ( 5 ) THE Divn Bench (consisting of one of us) held that as sub-sec (2) of s. 97 of the Municipalities Act provides that the publication of a notice that Section shall be conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Act, and the rules made thereunder, no enquiry was permissible as to the legality of the procedure for the imposition of taxes once a notice under S. 97 (l) had been published and that hence non-publication of the resolution as sanctioned by the Govt, did not affect the validity of the imposition of octroi duty. In Manjanatha Shetty's case (2), the notification purporting to be under s. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act, merely recited the fact that the resolu- tiqn of the. Municipal Council was sanctioned by the Govt and the date and the number of the Govt Order by which such sanction was accorded; and also stated that notice was given for the information of the public that the municipal Council alt its metting had resolved unanimously to give effect tq the rules for levy of octroi as sanctiond by the Govt and that the said resolution would be given effect to with effect from a particular date. The divn Bench (consisting of Govinda Bhat, J (as he then was) and Jagannatha shetty, J.) while quashing the notification, observed that the mandate of S. 97 requires that) there should be publication of the resolution sanctioned und'r S. 96, together with the notice reciting the sanction and the date and number thereof and that if the notification published under s. 97 (l) is not in accordance with the mandatory requirment of that Section, there cannot be valid imposition of tax. ( 6 ) THE earlier decision of the Divn Bench in Gopala Shatty's case (1), does not appear to have been brought to the notic: ot the Divn Bench which decided Manjanatha Shetty's case (2) in Sha Rupchand Hindmual's case (3), the notification under S 97 of the Municipalities Act did not contain the resolution sanctioned under s. 96 with all modifications subject to which the sanction was given. That notification did not also set out the exemptions from levy of octroi and the octroii Stations which are required under S 95 of the Municipalities Act to be specified in the resolution of the Municipal Council. That notification was assailed on the ground that the resolution sanctioned under S. 96 with modifications subject to which the sanction had be n given, had not beep published in that notification as required under S. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act. On behalf of the Municipality, it was contended that since the impugned notification set out the classes of goods, animals, etc. , on which octroi was levied with the rat s of levy, non-publication of the class of persons and property sought to be made liable, the exemptions from the levy and the specificaition of octroi Stations, was a mere irregularity not affecting the merits of the case and that as such its validity could not be questioned in view of sub-sec (5) of S. 80 of the Municipalities Act. Repelling that contention, the Divn Bench referred to the matters required to ba specifid in Cls (1) to (iii) of S. 95 (a) of the Municipalities Act and observed that at page 159 :" All enquiry into proceedings prior to publication of such notice being excluded by S. 97 (2), the publication under S. 97 (1) must contain (i) the classes of persons and property liable to tax and exemptions, if any; (ii) the rate of tax; and (iii) the Octroi Stations. Where any dispute arisrs on the question of the liability of any goods to octroi or as to its rate, the only document that can be looked into is the Gazette publication under S. 97 for determination of the liability to tax and therefore it in essential that it must specify all the essential particulars above mentioned including the Octroi Stations, and in the event of nonpublication of those essential matters, there can be no enforceable levy of octroi. Since' the essential elements for a valid imposition of octroi are absent in the publication under S. 97 in the instant cases, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to levy or collect octroi on thp brsis of the impugned Notification which is invalid, inoperative and void. " ( 7 ) THE earlier d'cision in Gopal Shetty cose (1) does not appear tr have been brought to the notice of the Divn Bench that decided Sha Rupchand hindumal's case (3 ). Mr. Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the patitioner, contended that the Divn Bench which decided Gopal Shetty case (1), had overlooked that it is only where a notification under S. 97 of the Municipalities Act, is publishad in strict conformity with the requirements of that Section, such publication operates as conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordane" with the provisions of that Act and the rules made thereunder and that if the publication of the sanctioned resolution with notice, is not 'in accordance with that Section, such publication cannot operate as conclusive ervidrnce that the tax has been duly imposed. It was also contended by Mr. Narasimha Murthy that sub-sec (2) of S. 97 does not bar enquiry into the validity of the publication under sub-sec (1) of that Section and that what is barred under sub-sec (2) is only the serutiny of various procedural requirements anterior to the publication of the notification under sub-sec (l) of that Section. Mr. Narasimha Murthy added that unless the notification under S. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act publishes the resolution of the Municipality as sanctioned under S. 96 of the Act, with all modifications subject to which such sanction has been given, with a notice reciting the sanction, then such publication cannot be regarded as a valid publication under sub-sec (1) of that Section and that in the absencel of such valid publication, no collusiveness under sub-sec (2) of that Section operates. ( 8 ) THERE is much force in the above contention of Mr. Narasimha Murthy. ( 8 ) THERE is much force in the above contention of Mr. Narasimha Murthy. Even so, the question is whether the omission to set out in the notification under sub-sec (1) of the S. 97 of the Municipalities Act, the resolution of the Municipal Council as sanctioned under S. 96 of that Act with all modifications subject to which such sanction is given, is a defect rr irregularity curable under sub-sec (5) of S. 80 of that Act, mr. Narasimha Murthy maintained that the procedure for imposing liability to pay tax should be strictly followed as pointed out by the Supreme court in Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar, air. 1965 SC. 1321. and that hence S. 80 (5) of the Municipalities Act has no application to defects and irregularities in the procedure prescribed in Chap. VI of the Municipalities act for imposing taxes. However, Mr. Narasimha Murthy fairly drew our attention to the decisions in Municipal Council, Raichur v. Prasanna, AIR. 1968 SC, 255, in which the Supreme: court held that in vifw of the terms of S 80 (5) of the Municipalities Act, the validity of the resolution proposing to levy octroi, was not liable to be questioned on the ground of irregularity which did not affect the merits of the case. ( 9 ) IN view of the above ruling of the Suprema Court, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Narasimha Murthy that S. 80 (5 ) of the Municipalities act has no application to defects and irregularities in the procedure under that Act for imposing taxes. The learned Govt Advocate and Mr. R Tilaka Hegde. learned Counsel for the Municipal Council, contended that even if there is no strict compliance, but substantial compliance with the requirements of sub-sec (1) of S. 97 of the Municipalities Act. S 80 (5) of that Act would curt defects and irregularities which do not affect the merits of the case. The above contention is, in our opinion, sound. learned Counsel for the Municipal Council, contended that even if there is no strict compliance, but substantial compliance with the requirements of sub-sec (1) of S. 97 of the Municipalities Act. S 80 (5) of that Act would curt defects and irregularities which do not affect the merits of the case. The above contention is, in our opinion, sound. But, the question still is whether the omission to set out in the notification under S 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act, the resolution of the municipal Council as sanctioned under S. 96 with the modifications subject to which the sanction is given, is a defect or irregularity which does not affect the merits of the case or is a substantial defect or irregluarity affecting the merits of the case mr. Narasimha Murthy maintained that the use of the word 'shall' in s. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act, clearly shows that the requirement to set out in the notification the resolution as sanctioned under S 96 with modifications, is mandatory and not directory and that non-complince" with such requirement will render such notification invalid. ( 10 ) THE question whether a particular provision in a statute is mandatory or directory, was considered by the Supreme Court in Raza Buland Sugar co Ltd v. Rampur Municipality, AIR. 1965 SC. 895, the following observations at p. 899 are apposite :" The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory-inasmuch as it uses the word 'shall' as in the present case-or is merely directory cannot be resolysd by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the, provision have all to be taken into account in arriving at th" conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory. "the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following qbservations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway co v. Normandin,1917 AC. 170. :" The question whether provisions in a statute are directly or imperative has very frequently arisen in this country, but it has been said that no general rule can be laid down, and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at. . . . . when the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such, that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to ba directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done. "in Raza Buland Svqar Co's case (6), the effect of failure to comply with the provisions of sub-sec (3) of S 94 of the U P Municipalities Act, 1916, was considered by the Supreme Court That sub-section reads :" Every resolution passed by a Board at a matter shall, as soon thereafter as may be, be published in a local paper published in Hindi and where there is no such local paper, in such manner as the State gf vt may, by general or special order, direct. " ( 11 ) IN that case the publication of the notification was made in a local paper in Urdu which had wide circulation in the area of the concerned Munici-' pality. The contention on behalf of the appellant was that there was no compliance with that sub-section Repelling that contention, the Supreme court held that even though there was a technical defect, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of that sub-section which were held to be only directory. ( 12 ) IN the light of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, we are unable to accept, the contention of Mr. Narasimha Murthy that the use of the word 'shall' in S. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act, should necessarily lead to the inference that provisions of that sub-section are mandatory. ( 12 ) IN the light of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, we are unable to accept, the contention of Mr. Narasimha Murthy that the use of the word 'shall' in S. 97 (1) of the Municipalities Act, should necessarily lead to the inference that provisions of that sub-section are mandatory. The learned Govt Advocate argued that neither the Municipalities Act nor the rules made thereunder have prescribed any form in which the municipal Council sho (uld pass a resolution under S. 95, Municipalities Act and that hence if a notification under S. 97 (l) contains all the material particulars relating to the tax sought to be levied, detailed in Cls (i) to (iii) of Sec. 95 (a), then the object of setting out in the notification under s. 97 (1) the sanctioned resolution of the Municipal Council, will be fulfilled and that hence the requirement to set out such resolution in such notification, should be regarded as only directory. ( 13 ) THE learned Govt Advocate is right, in our opinion, in his submission that neither the Municipalities Act nor the Rules thereunder have prescribed any particular form in which a resolution under S. 95 of that Act should be. All that that Section provides is that a resolution proposing to impose a tax, should contain the particulars about such tax as set out in cls (i) to (iii) therein. All that that Section provides is that a resolution proposing to impose a tax, should contain the particulars about such tax as set out in cls (i) to (iii) therein. We agree with the view expressed by the Divn bench in Sha Rupchand's cose (3) that a resolution which imposes the tax must contain all the particulars, so far as may be, detailed in Cls (i) to (iii) of S. 95 (a) ojf the Municipalities Act, which are the essentials to the requirements for any valid levy of a tax ( 14 ) IF a notification under S. 97 (l) of the Municipalities Act does not set out the resolution as sanctioned under S 96 (with all modifications subiect to which the sanction is given), but contains all the particulars referred to, in Cls (i) to (iii) of S. 95 (a), as far aa may be, and also indicates that the resolution of the Municipal Council to lovy tax, has been sanctioned by the Govt, such notification, in our opinion, subtantially complies with the requirement of S. 97 (1) and the omission to set out in such notification the actual resolution as sanctioned under S. 96 (with all modifications subject to which the sanction is given) should only be regarded as a defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the lew and that such defect or irregularity is cured by S. . 80 (5) of the Municipalities Act. 80 (5) of the Municipalities Act. On the other hand, if a notification under S. 97 (1) of the Municipalities act, does not set out the resolution as sanctioned under S. 96 (with all modifications subject to which the sanction is given, and does not also- (i) contain all the particular referred to in Cls (i) to (iii) of S. 95 (a), as far as may be; and (ii) indicate thet the resolution of the Municipality to levy tax, has been sanctioned by the Government; then the omission to set out in that notification the resolution as sanctioned under S. 96 (with all modifications subjeat to which the sanction is given) should, in our opinion, be regarded as a material defect or irregularity affecting the merits of the imposition of tax because the essential particulars of a valid levy of lax is not made known to the persons sought to be made liable and such notification is invalid and S. 97 (2) of the Municipalities act does not prohibit any enquiry into the legality of such notification. We shall now deal with the second question referred to us. We may now look at the relevant statutory provisions. S. 94 of the Municipalities act sets out the taxes which can be imposed by the Municipal Council. ( 15 ) THE relevant parts of that Section, read :" 94. Taxes which may be imposed.- (1) Subject to the general or special orders of the Govt, a Municipal Council, (a) after observing the preliminary procedure required by S. 95, and (b) with the sanction of the Govt and at rates not exceeding those specified in Schedules I to IV, may levy any one or more the following taxes- (i ). . . . . . . . . (viii) a water-rate or water-rates for water supplied by the Municipal Council which may be imposed in the form of a tax assessed on buildings and lands, or in any other form, including that of charges for such supply, fixed in such mode or modes as shall be best adapted to, the varying circumstances of any class of cases or of any individual case. " --- *** --- .