( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri. Konanahalli is a resident of the town of Haveri, who carries on the business of sale and purchase of cardamom within the limits of the Town Municipal Council, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council ). He has, in this writ petition filed invoking articles 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution , challenged the Notification of the State Government Exhibit 'b' dated 9-2-1976, sanctioning levy of octroi on cardamom at one per cent ad valorem in respect of the municipal Council and the Notification Exhibit 'c' dated 6-5-1976 issued by the Municipal Council respondent-2, bringing the levy of octroi as sanctioned by the State Government into force with effect from 1-8-1976. ( 2 ) THE Municipal Council passed a resolution on 27-1-1973 pro posing to levy octroi on several goods. It. proposed to levy octroi at the rate of one per cent ad valorem on cardamom. The said resolution was notified inviting objections. Several objections were received to the said proposal which were considered by a sub-committee constituted by the Municipal Council for the said purpose. The sub-committee recommended that the rate of octroi for cardamom be reduced from one per cent to 0. 15 per cent. The Municipal Council accepted the said recommendation of the sub committee by its resolution dated 26th july, 1973. It forwarded to the State Government the notice inviting objections from the public of Haveri, the objections received from persons concerned and its own recommendation to reduce the octroi from 1 per cent to 0. 15 per cent so far as cardamom is concerned. The State Government, after considering the original proposal, the objections and the recommendation of the Municipal Council, accorded sanction for levy of octroi on cardamom, at 1 per cent ad valorem, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 96 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said sanction is contained in the notification Exhibit 'b' referred to above. It is after obtaining such sanction that the Notification as per Exhibit 'c' was issued by the Municipal council to the effect that levy of octroi as sanctioned by the State government will come into force with effect from 1-8-1976, in supersession of the old rates. The said sanction is contained in the notification Exhibit 'b' referred to above. It is after obtaining such sanction that the Notification as per Exhibit 'c' was issued by the Municipal council to the effect that levy of octroi as sanctioned by the State government will come into force with effect from 1-8-1976, in supersession of the old rates. ( 3 ) THE only contention urged by Shri. B. V. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the State Government had no competence to sanction levy of octroi at 1 per cent ad valorem contrary to the recommendation made by the Municipal Council. The argument of Shri. Deshpande is that the power of sanction vested in the State Government under S. 96 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to increase the rate of octroi proposed by the Municipal Council. Support for this argument was derived from the language of S. 96 of the Act which reads as follows :"96. Power to sanction, modify and impose conditions. The government may either refuse to sanction the resolution submitted under S. 95 or may return it to the municipal council for further consideration, or if no objection, or no objection which is in its opinion sufficient, was made to the proposed tax within one month from the publication of the said notice, may sanction the said resolution either: (a) without modification, or (b) subject, (i) to such modifications not involving an increase of the amount to be imposed, or. (ii) to such conditions as the application within the municipality to any purpose or purposes of this Act specified in such conditions, of the whole or any part of the proceeds of such tax, as it deems fit. It is clear from S. 96 of the Act that what comes for sanction before the State Government is the resolution submitted under S. 95 of the Act proposing imposition of tax. On receipt of such resolution, the State government may either refuse sanction sought for by the Municipal council or return it to the Municipal Council for further consideration or sanction the said 'resolution with or without modifications or subject to cetain conditions. If the State Government chooses to sanction the resolution subject to certain modifications, it can only do so provided the modification made by it does not involve any increase in the amount of tax to be imposed. If the State Government chooses to sanction the resolution subject to certain modifications, it can only do so provided the modification made by it does not involve any increase in the amount of tax to be imposed. Shri. Deshpande is right in maintaining that if the state Government proposed to accord sanction subject to any modifications, it can only do so provided the modifications made by it do not involve any increase in the amount of tax to be imposed. It is clear from the language of S. 96 of the Act that what comes before the State Government for sanction is the resolution submitted to it under S. 95 of the Act. S. 95 of the Act prescribes the procedure preliminary to impose tax. S. 94 (l) of the Act empowers the Municipal Council, subject to the general or special orders of the Government, to levy anyone or more of the taxes specified in that section, including octroi on goods specified in schedule II entering the municipal limits for consumption, use or sale therein. The said power can be exercised subject to the general or special orders of the Government, after opbserving the preliminary procedure required by S. 95 of the Act and with the sanction of the Government and at rates not exceeding those specified in Schedules I to VII. S. 95 of the act, which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows : - "95. Procedure preliminary to imposing tax.-A municipal council before imposing a tax shall observe the following preliminary procedure: -. S. 95 of the act, which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows : - "95. Procedure preliminary to imposing tax.-A municipal council before imposing a tax shall observe the following preliminary procedure: -. (a) it shall, by resolution passed at a general meeting, select for the purpose one or other of the taxes specified in S. 94 and in such resolution specify 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 ; (iii) in the case of an octroi, the ocrtroi stations; (b) When such resolution has been passed, the municipal council shall publish in the official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed, a notice of such resolution in the prescribed form (c) any inhabitant of the Municipality objecting to the imposition of the said 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, send his objection in writing to the municipal council, and the Mun Council shall take all such objections into consideration, or shall authorise a, committee to consider the same and report thereon and unless it decides to abandon the proposed tax, shall submit such objections with its opinion thereon and any modifications proposed in accordance therewith, together with a copy of the notice aforesad to the Government. " ( 4 ) IT is clear from S. 95 of the Act that the Municipal Council, before imposing a tax, has to pass a resolution at a general meeting proposing one or the other taxes specified in S. 94 of the Act, the classes of persons or property or both which the Municipal Council proposes to make liable, the exemptions which it proposes to. make, the amount or rate at which the Municipal Council proposes to assess each class and in the case of octroi, the octroi stations. The said resolution is required to be published, inviting objections from persons likely to be affected by the imposition of the proposed tax. make, the amount or rate at which the Municipal Council proposes to assess each class and in the case of octroi, the octroi stations. The said resolution is required to be published, inviting objections from persons likely to be affected by the imposition of the proposed tax. Clause (c) of S. 95 of the act makes it clear that any inhabitant of the Municipality may submit his objections to the proposal made in the resolution of the Municipal council. All the objections received within the specified period of one month are required to be considered by the Municipal Council or a committee constituted by it. After considering the objections received, the Municipal Council may decide to abandon the proposed tax in which event, no further steps need be taken for obtaining sanction of the State government. If the Municipal Council does not decide to abandon its proposal, it has to submit the objections received by it, with its own opinion thereon and any modifications that it proposes, to the State government for securing its sanction under S. 96 of the Act. It is clear from the scheme of S. 95 of the Act that what is forwarded to the State government for sanction is the resolution passed by the Municipal council proposing to impose tax, the objections received to the said proposal, its opinion in regard to those objections and its proposal for modifications, if any. When these materials are received by the State government, it has to apply its mind in the matter of granting sanction tinder S. 96 of the Act. The State Government may refuse to sanction the resolution submitted to it under S. 95 of the Act or return it to the municipal Council for further consideration. If there are no objections to the resolution or the objection received are, in the opinion of the State government not worthy of acceptance, the State Government may sanction the resolution submitted to it under S. 95 of the Act. The State government may accord sanction either with or without modifications. The State Government, however, is not competent to accord sanction with modifications which involve an increase of the amount of tax to be imposed. The State government may accord sanction either with or without modifications. The State Government, however, is not competent to accord sanction with modifications which involve an increase of the amount of tax to be imposed. It is clear from the language of S. 96 of the Act that what comes for sanction before the State Government is the resolution nassed by the municipal Council proposing the imposition of tax, to which objections are called for from the inhabitants of the municipality. S. 95 contemplates passing of only one resolution proposing to impose tax. After objections are received to the proposal contained in the said resolution, no further resolution is contemplated by S. 95 of the Act to be passed by the Municipal Council. All that is required by S. 95 (c) of the Act is to consider the objections received and to forward the resolution of the municipal Council proposing imposition of tax together with its opinion and the modifications to the proposal contained in the resolution that it considers just and proper to make. It is the amount that is proposed to be imposed in the resolution of the Municipal Council that cannot be increased by the State Government while according sanction under S. 96 of the Act. The opinion of the Municipal Council on the objections received by it or the modifications it suggests in the light of the said opinion to the proposal made in its original resolution are not binding on the State Government, though those are matters which the State Government is undoubtedly required to take into consideration. Subject to the maximum amount specified in the resolution of the Municipal Council to which objections are invited from the inhabitants of the Municipal council, the State Government can accord sanction with such modifications as it considers just and proper having regard to the circumstances of the case. Having regard to the clear language of Sections 95 and 96 of the Act, it is clear that the power of according sanction subject to modifications conferred on the State Government by S. 96 of the Act does not in any way get restricted by the opinion of the Municipal Council formulated by it after considering all the objections received to the proposal made by its original resolution made under S. 95 of the Act. Subject to the maximum rate specified in the resolution of the Municipal Council passed under S. 95 of the Act, the State Government can accord sanction varying the rate of tax. The power of the State Government in the matter of sanctioning the resolution of the Municipal Council passed under S. 95 of the Act is not limited by the opinion or modification suggested by the Municipal Council after considering the objections received by it under S. 95 (c) of the Act. As in this case the Municipal council proposed to impose tax at the rate of 1 per cent ad valorem on cardamom, though after considering the objections it proposed the reduction of the same to 0. 15 per cent, the State Government was competent, while according sanction under S. 96 of the Act, to accord sanction to imposition of octroi duty at the rate not exceeding 1 per cent ad valorem. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the sanction accorded by the State Government under S. 96 of the Act. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .