( 1 ) THESE petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution had come up before malimath, J. who referred them to, a Division Bench. ( 2 ) IN these petitions the petitioners have prayed for- (i) a declaration that the resolution passed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) at its meeting held on 30-12-74 levying Octroi on certain new items of goods as illegal, ultra vires and of no legal effect; and (ii) directing the Corporation and is agents and officers not to levy and collect octroi in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution. ( 3 ) CERTAIN material facts are not in dispute. The Standing Committee (Taxation and Finance) of the Corporation passed a resolution on 22-4-1974 recommending to the Corporation tha,t Octroi duty might be. levied on certain new items of goods in addition to the exisitjng ones on which octroi was'being levied by the) Corporation. At its meeting held on 20-7-1975, the Corporation, by a resolution, approved the, aforesaid recommendation of the. Standing Committee. In pursuance of that resolution the commissioner of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) published a notice as contemplated by sub-sec (1) of S. 93 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter refer, red to as the Corporation Act), ^tatjing that] the. Corporation proposed to levy octroi duty on new items of goods specified to the schedule to that notice and inviting objections, if any, to the proposed levy of octroi, within one, month from the date; of publication of that notice. That notice which was d|. 5-9-1974, was published in the daily news papers, 'deccan Herald', on 10-9-1974 and in the Karnataka Gazette d. 17-10-1974. To the proposed levy of octroi 3,024 objections were received by the Corpn. Most of them were from individuals, firms and companies while a few of them were from organizations of trade, commerce and industry like the Federation of karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Commr got prepared a note (which was signed on his behalf by the Administrative Officer of the corporation) on 24-12-1974 analysing the nature of the objections and setting out the legal position regarding levy of Octroi. The notice of the meeting of the Corporation on 30-12-1974 together with the agenda of that meeting, was sent to the Corporation on 18-12-1974. The notice of the meeting of the Corporation on 30-12-1974 together with the agenda of that meeting, was sent to the Corporation on 18-12-1974. The proposal to levy octroi on new items of goods, was not included in the subjects mentioned in that agenda. On 30-12-1974 the meeting of the Corporation commenced at 4 p. m. Just when the meeting was about to conclude a supplementary agenda consisting of urgent subjects for that meeting and the aforesaid note prepared on behalf of the Commr, were placed on the table of the corporators. For more than an hour after the commencement of that meeting there were interpellations and answers thereto. Thereafter a large number of subjects in the agenda and the supplementary agenda were taken up for consideration and the meleting went on for more than six hours. ( 4 ) THE petitioners and Respondent 1 (the Corporation) have joined issue as to whether any resolution was passed at that meeting (on 30-12-74) levying octroi on new items of goods. According to the petitioners no such resolution was passed at that meeting while according to respondent 1 such a resolution was passed unanimously at that meeting. ( 5 ) FOR purposes of these petitions it is not necessary to determine whether or not the impugned resolution levying octroi on new items of goods was passed at the meeting of the Corporation on 30-12-1974. We shall assume for the sake of argument that such a resolution was passed and we shall proceed to examine whether such a resolution was a valid one. ( 6 ) SEC. 97 of the Corporation Act enumerates taxes and duties which may be levied by the Corporation and octroi on animals and goods is one of them. S. 98 of the Act deals with the procedure for levy of taxes. Subsec (1) of that section reads :" 98. Powers of control of Government.- (1) Before the Corporation passes any resolution imposing a tax or duty for the first time it shall direct the Commissioner to publish a notice in the Official gazette and in the local newspapers of its intention and fix a reasonable period not being less than one month from the date of publication of such notice in the Official Gazette for submission of objections. The Corporation may, after considering the objections, if any, received within the period specified, determine by resolution to levy the tax or duty. Such resolution shall specify the rate at which, the date from which and the period of levy, if any, for which such tax or duty shall be levied. " (Underlining italics is ours ). ( 7 ) FROM the above sub-section it is clear that before passing a resolution to levy a tax or duty, the Corporation should consider the objections, if any, received within the period specified in the notice under that subsection calling for objections. Such consideration of objections is, in our opinion an essential prerequsite for passing a resolution to levy tax or duty. As stated in Craies on Statute Law (7th Edn) at p. 297, a subordinate law making body is bound by the terms of the delegated or derived authority and the Courts of law, as a general rule, will not give effect to the rules etc. , thus made unless satisfied that all the conditions precedent to the validity of the rules have been fulfilled ( 8 ) AS stated earlier, the subject of the proposed levy of octroi on new items of goods, had not been included in the agenda sent to the Corpolators on 15-12-1974 and that subject was included only in the supplementary agenda which together with the note prepared on behalf of the Commr, was furnished to the Corporators just before the commencement of the meeting on 30-12-1974. In these circumstances, the question is whether the Corporation can be said to have considered the objections before it passed the impugned resolution levying octroi on new items of goods. ( 9 ) THE several meanings of the word 'considered' according to the shorter Oxford English Dictionary are as follows :" to view attentively, to give, examine, inspect; to look attentively, to contemplate mentally; to give heed to, take note of; to think deliberately, bethink one self, reflect. " ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid meanings of the word 'considered' it is clear that there must be an application of the mind to a problem or question or subject before it can be said to have been considered. " ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid meanings of the word 'considered' it is clear that there must be an application of the mind to a problem or question or subject before it can be said to have been considered. When the Corporators were intimated just before the commencement of the meeting that the subject of the proposed levy of octroi would be taken up for consideration at that meeting and the aforesaid note on behalf of the Commr regarding the objections to the proposed levy of octroi, was also furnished to the Corporators just before the commencement of that meeting, it is difficult to imagine that the Corporators could have applied their minds and considered those objections. They did not have reasonable opportunity to know what those objections were and much less to consider them. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, Mr. T. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for respondent 1 (The Corporation), argued that it was open to the Corporators to read the aforesaid note gat prepared by the Commissioner and to apply their minds to those objections and that as the Corporators had unanimously passed the impugned resolution levying octroi, they must be presumed to have considered the objections to the proposed levy of octroi, received by the Corpn. ( 12 ) IF before passing the impugned resolution levying octroi, the corporators had reasonable opportunity to know what objections were received and to apply their minds thereto, it might have been possible to prtsume that they had considered those objections. But as stated earlier, the Corporators had no such opportunity because they were furnished with a note on those objections, just prior to the commencement of the meeting. How could the Corporators be expected to read that note, when interpellations and answers thereto and discussion on other subjects were going on? The Corporators should be expected to have bestowed their attention to the interpellations and answers thereto and other subjects which were discussed before the subject of the proposed levy of octroi was taken for discussion. If any Corporator wanted to look into any of the objections and deliberate over them, he had no opportunity to do so. The Corporators should be expected to have bestowed their attention to the interpellations and answers thereto and other subjects which were discussed before the subject of the proposed levy of octroi was taken for discussion. If any Corporator wanted to look into any of the objections and deliberate over them, he had no opportunity to do so. Such an important subject as the proposed levy of octroi on a large number of items of goods, which has substantial consequences on trade, commerce and industry and also affects lakhs of consumers of those goods, was rushed through in such a manner as to deprive real opportunity to the Corporators to consider the numerous objections received by the Corporation. The statutory requirement that the Corporation should consider the objections before passing a resolution to levy tax or duty, should not be reduced to an empty formality. The consideration of such objections should be real and not a pretence. ( 13 ) WE are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Krishna Rao that there was a real consideration by the Corporation of the objections received by it, to the proposed levy of octroi. As the condition precedent for passing the impugned resolution levying octroi, in accordance with the procedure under Sec. 98 (1) of the Corporation Act, was not satisfied on account of non-consideration of the objections to the proposed levy of octroi, that resolution should be held to be invalid. ( 14 ) IN the view we take, it is not necessary to pronounce on numerous other contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners ( 15 ) IN the result we allow these petitions and declare the resolution of the Corporation d/. 30-12-1974 levying octroi on new items of goods and the Notification d/. 31-12-1974 issued by the Commr in pursuance of that resolution as invalid and of no legal effect. We also direct the Corporation, its officers and officials to forbear from levying and collecting octroi in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the Corporation and the aforesaid Notification issued by the Commissioner. ( 16 ) IF octroi has been collected from any of these petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification, the same shall be refunded by the corporation to them. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances of these petitions, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .