JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---In these two petitions validity and legality of Octroi Rules made under section 114(1)(e) read with section 115 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (II of 1950) ("The Act") is challenged. These Rules as sanctioned under the Maharashtra Government Gazette Notification No. NMC-5361-29573-C dated 16th May, 1966 were amended by the Maharashtra Government Gazette Notification No. NMC-2483-363-C-R-50-84-UD-23 dated 26th September, 1984. Undisputed position is that maximum amounts of rates referred to in section 114(3) of the Act have not been specified by any Rules and that 1984 Rules were proposed to the Government under section 115(1) of the Act by the Administrator appointed under section 22-A of the Act and not by the elected body. 2. Following two-fold submissions are made by Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Nagpur Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and adopted by Shri Badiye, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the other petition : (i) Fixation of maximum amount of rates by the State Government under section 114(3) was mandatory. (ii) Only elected body can initiate a financial proposal. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have examined the scheme of the Act. Section 5(1) defines the term "Administrator" and section 5(12) "the Corporation" which consists of member elected from various wards. Section 22-A provides for appointment of Administrator in a given set of circumstances after the normal term of the office of the Councillors expires. Section 22-A(2) empowers the Administrator with all the powers and duties of the Corporation. Section 409 refers to appointment of Administrator in different set of circumstances. Section 25 lays down the method of convening meetings of the Corporation, section 28 permits the members of the public to attend the meetings of the Corporation, section 33 refers to the constitution of the Standing Committee, section 39 refers to the Special Consultative Committees, section 84 refers to the budget, section 87 refers to the power of the Standing Committee to reduce or transfer budget grants and section 89 refers to the power of Corporation Octroi Rules cannot be brought into force unless approved by the State Government and no other to re-adjust income and expenditure during the year, Part IV, Chapter XI deals with the subject 'Taxation'. Section 114(1) gives the list of taxes mandatorily to be imposed and sub-section (2) of non-mandatory taxes. Section 114(1) gives the list of taxes mandatorily to be imposed and sub-section (2) of non-mandatory taxes. As per section 114(1)(e) "a cess on the animals or goods brought within the City for sale, consumption or used therein" is mandatory. Sub-section (3) of section 114 dealing with fixation of maximum rates reads as under :--- "The State Government may, by Rules made under this Act, regulate the imposition, assessment and collection of taxes under this section and specify maximum amounts of rates for any tax and for preventing evasion of assessment and payment of taxes." Section 115 specifies the procedure for imposing taxes. 3. It is contended that sections 114 and 115 of the Act are and have been held to be valid legislative delegation in the matter of imposing taxes because of the following multiple limitations inbuilt in those provisions, (i) the rates are proposed by the elected representatives who are accountable to the public, (ii) necessity of having approval of the State Government to the proposals, (iii) empowering specification of maximum amount of rates and therefore, the word "may" in section 114(3) should be read as "shall". Our special attention was invited to the case of (Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of Bombay)1, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 97 which interpreted requirement of fixation of rates in section 11 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and the case (M/s. Devidas v. State of Punjab)2, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1895 which interpreted section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act containing power of the Provisional Government to levy every year on the taxable turnover of a dealer a tax at such rates as the said Government might direct. In these cases the provisions were held to be suffering from the vice of excessive delegation. Very fairly, our attention was also invited to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of (Parekh Brothers v. Corporation of City of Nagpur)3, 1975 Mh.L.J. 86, in which validity of these very Rules of 1966 has been upheld, repelling a contention that they were void in the absence of fixation of maximum rates as contemplated under section 114(3). In the first place, that decision which has considered several Supreme Court decisions which has considered several Supreme Court decision including the case Mohammad Hussain (supra) is binding on us and we see no reason to take a different view and refer the question to a Full Bench. We also feel that the object and the and the scheme of the Act does not warrant reading of the word ''may'' as ''shall''. Section 114(3) is but one of the several factors which destroy the doctrine of excessive delegation, and is not a deciding factor. It is a settled law that depending upon the scheme and object even a single check can avoid the vice of excessive delegation. It is pertinent to notice that Octroi Rules cannot be brought into force unless approved by the State Government and other authority is empowered to fix maximum rates which can even be varied. Rightly, therefore, section 11 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939, has not been equated with section 114(3) of the Act on this aspect. True, it is that the case of M/s. Devidas (supra) has not been considered in that decision, but that makes no difference, as it deals with altogether different piece of legislation and lays down the principles which are not in dispute. We therefore, see no merit in this challenge. Our attention was invited to the case of (Madanlal v. Municipal Council, Tarana)4, 1974 M.P.L.J. 251 and the case of (Dhanraj Jain v. State of M.P.)5, 1975 M.P.L.J. Note 114 taking a view that section 127(2) of the M.P. Municipalities Act mandatorily provides for prescribing maximum limits of octroi rates and in the absence of such fixation, there cannot be valid Octroi Rules. With respect we would prefer the view taken by this Court in Parekh Brothers. 4. Are the Rules bad only because financial proposals were initiated by the Administrator is the next point ? No doubt, initiation of a financial proposal has several implications and the Act provides for several checks and the balances under the Act, but that does not mean that an Administrator (who is entrusted with all the powers and duties of the Corporation under the Act) is powerless only in this matter. No such exception is carved out in the Act directly or by necessary implication. Reason is obvious. No such exception is carved out in the Act directly or by necessary implication. Reason is obvious. It is well neigh impossible for any Administrator to function effectively for years together without the power to initiate financial proposals in case of necessity. After all, an important check of approval by the Government continues to exist as before. Our attention is invited to the following observations in the case of (The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi)6, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1232 : The councillors have to go for election every four years. This means that if they have behave 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 democratic method of bringing to book the elected representatives who act unreasonably in such matters. It is however urged that section 490 of the Act provides for the suppression of the Corporation in case it is not competent to perform or persistently, makes default in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by or under the Act or any other law or exceeds or abuses its power. In such a case the elected body may be superseded and all powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the Corporation shall be exercised and performed by such officer or authority as the Central Government may provide in this behalf. It is urged that when this happens, the power of taxation goes in the hands of some officer or authority appointed by Government who is not accountable to the local electorate and who may exercise all the powers of taxation conferred on the elected Corporation by the Act. This however has not happened in the present case and we need not express any opinion on the question whether such officer or authority would be competent to increase the rates of taxes already fixed when the Corporation is superseded or can impose new taxes which were not there at the time of suppression. That is a matter which may have to be considered when such a situation arises." 5. That is a matter which may have to be considered when such a situation arises." 5. We are unable to deduce from the above observation a proposition that the mere fact that delegation is to an individual attracts the vice of excessive delegation in all cases. The question is kept open. In a subsequent decision in the case of (Gwalior Rayon Mills v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax)7, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1660 in the context of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the following significant observations on the point are made : "It is not clear what differences does it make in principle by saying that since the delegation is to a representative body that would be a guarantee that the delegate will not exercise the power unreasonably, for ex hypothesi the legislature must perform the essential legislative function, it is certainly no consolation that the body to which the function has been delegated has a representative character, In other words, if no guidance is provided or policy laid down, the fact that the delegate has a representative character could make no difference in principle." We, therefore, see no illegality in the Administrator initiating financial proposals, Shri Shelat invited our attention to the case of (Gopalan Co. v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore)8, (1976)1 Karnataka L.J. 202 in which a view on similar lines is taken. This point is thus equally meritless. 6. Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce seeks permission to reserve challenge to various Rules raised in the petition. Permission granted. 7. Shri Badiye has raised an additional point that the octroi rates are far too excessive, increase is unwarranted and in case slackness, evasion in recovery is avoided and a better and impartial machinery and methodology for collection is used, there would be no occasion to enhance the rates. Several allegations are made and instances of corruption and mal-administration are given. Now, most of the allegations are disputed questions of facts. Even assuming that they are correct, we find it difficult to quash the Rules on these considerations because the ideals howsoever desirable are not always possible to be achieved. This is not to suggest that the Corporation is not obliged to examine all relevant factors and attend to specific complaints. Now, most of the allegations are disputed questions of facts. Even assuming that they are correct, we find it difficult to quash the Rules on these considerations because the ideals howsoever desirable are not always possible to be achieved. This is not to suggest that the Corporation is not obliged to examine all relevant factors and attend to specific complaints. Indeed it is its foremost duty to see that the rates are reasonable and there is maximum recovery of the octroi duty so that the average honest man is not subjected to continuous increasing and many times unbearable burden of taxes. We are informed that at present there is elected body which is accountable to the public. Needless to mention that in a case the body feels that the Administrator had proposed unnecessary increase, the body is not only free but duty bound to revise the decisions. Octroi duty seriously affects a common man, whose cup of sorrow is already brimful and touches one of his most guarded and rare possession the hear empty purse. It is trite a say that howsoever detestable the subject of tax payment may be, there is no escape from it, for its payment is a citizen's obligation. What is really necessary is a sensible and simple tax structure and impartial machinery for its realization. How to do it is for the Corporation and the Government to decide. For courts it is a forbidden area. We are concerned merely with legal challenges. 8. To conclude, petition fail. Rules discharged. No Costs. Rule discharged. -----