Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This application, after a full dressed hearing, is being disposed of with the consent of the parties, at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioners in this application challenge the validity of the Assessment of Annual Rental Value of Holding Rules, 1993 (for the sake of brevity the Assessment Rules) framed by the State Government in purported exercise of powers under Secs. 130 (1) and 227 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act (The Act, hereinafter). Also come under challenge notification classifying the Patna roads and fixing the rental Rules per square foot for different classes of holdings, in terms of the different provisions of the Assessment Rules. Finally the petitioners challenge the revision of the Annual Rental value of their holding (the basis for determination of the municipal taxes payable as proposed in the notice dated 27-9-1993 and its corrigendum dated 5-10-1993) on application of the impugned assessment Rules and the Corporations notifications. 3. The petitioners are the owners of a house bearing municipal holding No 2274 (New/1040 old) situated at Kankarbagh within municipal circle No. 8-A The house stands on the road commonly known as the (old) Patna bye-pass road. Prior to 1978-79 the annual rental value (ARV for short) of this houses was fixed at Rs. 2,400 ; in 1978-79 it was revised to Rs. 4,000 and despite a provision for revision of the ARV at intervals of five years the ARV of the holding remained unaltered till by the impugned notice dated 27-9-1993 it was revised to Rs. 1,55,520 (that is an increase by approx. 39 times). On the earlier ARV (Rs. 4000) the petitioners were required to pay municipal taxes which under different heads added upto 43.75% of the ARV (holding tax @ 12.5% ; water tax @ 10% ; latirine tax @ 10% and education and health cess @ 11.25%). On the revised valuation (Rs. 1,55,520) and under the newly framed Assessment Rules, the petitioner are required to pay municipal taxes only at the rate of 9% of the ARV (holding tax 2.5% ; water tax @ 2% ; latrine tax @ 2% and education and health cess @ 2.5%), In monetary terms, however, the petitioners must pay municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 13,996.80 annually in place of Rs. 13,996.80 annually in place of Rs. 1,750 annually which they paid before the impugned rules came into force and the ARV of the holding was revised on that basis. 4. The petitioners in addition to questioning the validity of the Assess Rules and the Corporations notifications also challenge the revision of the ARV of their holding on some other minor grounds : these are (i) that through newspaper advertisement the Corporation had declared to have undertaken revision of the ARVs in circle Nos. 6, 7 and 9 only and not is circle No. 8-A where the holding in question is situate ; (ii) that no proceeding under Sec. 138 of the Act was initiated for revision of the ARV of this holding ; (iii) that there was no notice either general or to the petitioner in this regard. There are some other similar points but it will not be necessary to examine them in detail as these points can very well be considered in the remedial proceedings, by way of review and appeal available to the petitioners under the Act. It is accordingly, proposed to examine here only the challenge relating to the validity of the newly framed rules and the Corporations notifications issued thereunder. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation justifying the Assessment Rules and the Corporations notifications supplementing them. It is stated that the impugned rules together with the supplementing notifications provide a highly rational and scientific basis for imposition of municipal taxes. The new scheme enables the Corporation to reduce the rate of Municipal taxes from 43.75% to only 9% of the ARV of the holding (This claim is regardless of the petitioners lament that it increases the ARV by 39 times of the existing value and consequently the actual amount of the taxes works out to be much higher). It is further stated on behalf of the Corporation that the new scheme is designed to eliminate unfair play in the action of the authority under the Act in determining the annual rental value of the holding. 6. It is further stated on behalf of the Corporation that the new scheme is designed to eliminate unfair play in the action of the authority under the Act in determining the annual rental value of the holding. 6. At this stage it may be pointed out that the essential and basic difference in the manner of determination of ARVs of houses introduced by the impugned rules lies in that before its commencement the ARV of each and every house was required to be determined one by one, taking each house into consideration separately. The impugned rules introduced the system of classifying holdings into very large groups and then uniformly applying a certain rate to calculate the ARV of the holdings falling in the same group. It does not require much argument to realise that under the earlier mode, where the ARV of each single house was to be determined separately there was much greater possibility of taking into account the detailed features of a house and to give allowance (or vice versa) for a particular feature that may tend to lower (or enhance) the rental value of that house. Under the new mode of determination of ARV any consideration of the details of variations in a house shall be inevitably excluded as any unevennesses in different houses would stand levelled off as a result of a classification. 7. According to the Corporation, the change in the manner of assessment of ARVs is primarily aimed at elimination of unfair practices in the determination of ARV. Illustrations have been cited to show that under the previous scheme ARVs of holdings similarly situated and having approximately the same area were fixed vastly differently and it is sugested that by taking the Corporations staff into collusion many house owners were able to get the ARVs of their houses fixed at an absurdly low figure. It is stated (vide para 8 of the counter affidavit) that the State Government with a view to introduce more objectivity in the process of assessment and "in order to eliminate unfair play of the action of the authority under the Act in determining the annual rental value of the holding has framed the new rules". It is stated (vide para 8 of the counter affidavit) that the State Government with a view to introduce more objectivity in the process of assessment and "in order to eliminate unfair play of the action of the authority under the Act in determining the annual rental value of the holding has framed the new rules". It is again stated (vide para 13 of the counter affidavit) that the introduction of the new rules has "eliminated the unfair determination of annual rental value and there is no possibility of any corruption or raising finger against the determination of the annual rental value and there is no possibility of any corruption or raising finger against the determination of tax inasmuch as it will have the effect of reducing the good numbers of litigations relating to assessment pending in different courts". 8. Before proceeding to examine the Assessment Rules coming under challenge in this application, it will be useful to take a look at the relevant provisions in the Act. The subject of municipal taxation is dealt with in Part IV, Chapter XI of the Act. Sec. 123 is the taxing provision and its material parts are reproduced below: 123. Power to Impose Taxes.-(i) For the purpose of this Act, the Corporation may, with the previous approval of the State Government, impose the following taxes, namely: (a) A tax on holdings situated within Patna assessed on their annual letting value. (b) A water tax accused on the annual letting value of holdings; (c) A latrine tax assessed on the annual letting value of holdings. (Emplasis added) Sec. 124 provides the maximum rate, in terms of percentage of the annual value of the holding at which holding tax can be imposed and its material parts are as follows: 124. Restrictions on the imposition of the tax on holdings.-(1) The Tax on holdings shall not be imposed at a rate exceeding twelve and a half per centum on the annual value of holdings. Similarly Secs. 123 and 126 prescribe that water tax can not exceed 12.5% and latrine tax cannot exceed 10% on the annual value of holdings. Sec. 130 defines annual value of holdings and provides for the mode of its assessment. It will be useful to reproduce this section in full: 130. Similarly Secs. 123 and 126 prescribe that water tax can not exceed 12.5% and latrine tax cannot exceed 10% on the annual value of holdings. Sec. 130 defines annual value of holdings and provides for the mode of its assessment. It will be useful to reproduce this section in full: 130. Annual value of holdings.- (1) Save as may be prescribed by the rules made by the State Government, the annual value of a holding shall be deemed to be the annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let. (2) If there be on the holding a building or buildings the actual cost of erection which can be ascertained and which is or are not intended for letting or for the residence of the owner himself, the annual value of such holding shall be deemed to be an amount which may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the State Government, be equal to, but not exceed, twelve and a half per centum of such cost, in addition to a reasonable ground rent for the land comprised for the following: Provided that, where the actual cost so ascertained or they may exceed five lacs of rupees, the percentage on the annual value to be levied in respect of so much of the cost as excess of five lacs of rupees shall not exceed one-fourth of the percentage determined by the Corporation under Section 136. (3) The value of any machinery or furnitre which may be on a holding shall not be taken into consideration in estimating the annual value of such holding under this section. (Emphasis added) Sec. 136 lays down the procedure for determination of the of the rates of taxes (within the maximum limits prescribed under Secs. 124, 125 and 126). Under the earlier scheme the tax on holding and the latrine tax had already reached the maximum prescribed rates; the was tax was being realised @ 10% as against the permissible maximum of 12.5% on the annual value of holdings. This section, therefore, had lost practically all its use. 9. Sec. 150 provides an opportunity to raise objection before the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation regarding the valuation or assessment of any holding ; Sec. 151 lays down the mode for disposal of such objections. This section, therefore, had lost practically all its use. 9. Sec. 150 provides an opportunity to raise objection before the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation regarding the valuation or assessment of any holding ; Sec. 151 lays down the mode for disposal of such objections. If the owner of the holding was still dissatisfied he could go in appeal before the District Judge in terms of Sec. 152 of the Act. 10. Finally Sec. 227 gives power to the State Government to make rules as to taxation. The rules could be made, inter alia, for regulating assessment, collection on composition of taxes and tolls (vide Clause F of Sec. 227). 11. The point that emerges from the relevant provisions of the Act as noted above and which it would be useful to bear in mind is that the determination of the three municipal taxes in question is tied up with the annual letting value of holdings in the charging Sec. 123 itself. Further, in terms of Section 130, the annual value of holding would the gross annual rental it may reasonably be expected to actually fetch. Hence, the rules, either as envisaged under Sec. 130 or as framed under Sec. 227, must pay head to a realistic assessment of the letting Value of holdings to form the basis of the determination of the municipal taxes. In other words, any rule that would lead to an assessment of holdings not in accord with their actual rental capacity would be held as ultra vires Secs. 123 and 130 of the Act. 12. Now a look at the Assessment Rules. These rules are said to have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Sec. 227 with Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 130 of the Act. The Rules were notified in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 12-8-1993. In terms of Rule 1, these rules came into force at once. Rule 2(b) defines annual rental value as the rent that a holding is capable of fetching over & period of one year. Rules 2(d) and (e) define commercial holding and industrial holding respectively. Rule 3 provides for classification of holdings and is in the following terms: 3. In terms of Rule 1, these rules came into force at once. Rule 2(b) defines annual rental value as the rent that a holding is capable of fetching over & period of one year. Rules 2(d) and (e) define commercial holding and industrial holding respectively. Rule 3 provides for classification of holdings and is in the following terms: 3. Classification of holdings.- (1) The holding in the Corporation area shall be classified by the Corporation on the following criteria: (a) Situation of the holding- (i) Holdings on the Principal Main Road, (ii) Holdings on the Main Road, (iii) Holding other than Sub-clauses (i) and (ii). (b) Use of the Holding- (i) Purely residential, (ii) Purely commercial or industrial (whether self owned or otherwise), (iii) Partly residential and partly commercial. (iv) All Holdings other than Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). (c) Type of Construction- (i) Pucca building with R. C. C. Roof, (ii) Pucca building with asbestos/corrugated sheet roof, (iii) All other buildings not covered in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii). (2) Subject to the approval of the State Government, the Corporation may from time to time, publish the list of Principal Main Roads as well as Main Roads and if necessary modify the lists for the purposes of these Rules. Rule 4 provides for calculation of the carpet area of a holding which would form the basis for commutation of its ARV and identifies the parts of a house which are to be included in the calculation of its carpet area. It is in the following terms: 4. Methods of calculation of carpet area for commutation of Annual Rental Value of a Holding.-For the purpose of calculation of Annual Rental Value of a Holding, measurement of carpet area shall be calculated as under: (i) Rooms-Full measurement of internal dimension. (ii) Covered Verandah-Full measurement of internal dimension, (iii) Balcony Corridor, Kitchen and Store-50 per cent measurement of internal dimension, (iv) Garrage-One-fourth measurement of internal dimension, (v) Area covered by both room, latrines, portico and staircase- Shall not form part of the carpet area. Rule 5 empowers the Corporation to fix the rate of rental value per sq. ft and further provides that the annual rental value of a holding would be the multiple of its carpet are and the rental value per sq. ft. fixed by the Corporation. This rule is re-produced below: 5. Rule 5 empowers the Corporation to fix the rate of rental value per sq. ft and further provides that the annual rental value of a holding would be the multiple of its carpet are and the rental value per sq. ft. fixed by the Corporation. This rule is re-produced below: 5. Power to fix the Rental Value and the Annual Rental Value.- (1) The rate of rental value per sq. ft shall be fixed by the Corporation with the prior approval of the State Government having regard to the situation, use and the type of construction of the holdings. (2) The Annual Rental Value shall be commuted as a multiple of of the carpet area and the rental value fixed under Sub-rule (1). (3) The rental value per sq. ft. of carpet area for different clashes of holdings shall be published from time to time by the Corporation with the prior approval of the State Government. Rule 6 lays down the rates of the three municipal taxes in the following terms: (i) Holding Tax-at the rate of 2.5 per cent of Annual Rental Value, (ii) Water Tax--at the rate of 2 per cent of Annual Rental Value, (iii) Latrine Tax- at the rate of 2 per cent of Annual Rental Value. Rule 7 empowers the Corporation to revise the rates of taxes fixed under Rule 6. It is as follows: 7. Power of Revision of Tax.-The Corporation may revise the rate of Tax on Annual Rental Value with the prior approval of the State Government. Rule 8 relates to the State Governments power to remove any difficulties arising in the operation of these rules. 13 Following the Assessment Rules, the Corporation issued two notifications dated 8-9-1993 ; one, in exercise of power under Rule 3(a) and the other in exercise of power under Rule 5 (1) of the Assessment Rules. True copies of the two notifications are to be found at Annexure 4. In the notification issued under Rule 3 (2) of the Assessment Rules, the Corporation has classified the Patna roads; From the notification it appears that 24 roads have been identified as Principal Main Roads and 88 Roads are identified as Main Roads. The rest of the innumerable roads, streets, lanes, bye lanes, gullies, alleys etc. In the notification issued under Rule 3 (2) of the Assessment Rules, the Corporation has classified the Patna roads; From the notification it appears that 24 roads have been identified as Principal Main Roads and 88 Roads are identified as Main Roads. The rest of the innumerable roads, streets, lanes, bye lanes, gullies, alleys etc. not mentioned in the notification would fall in the category under Rule 3(l)(a)(iii) of the Assessment Rules, attracting the taxes at much lower rates. 14. In the notification issued under Rule 5 (1) of Rules, the Corporation has fixed the rates of rental value per sq. ft. depending upon the situation, use and the nature of construction of holdings. For example, the rental value of a pucca building used for residential purpose and situated on a principal main road is fixed @ Rs. 18 per sq. ft. and that of a building for commercial use on a principal main road @ Rs. 54 per sq. ft. The rental value of a residential building on a main road is fixed @ Rs. 12 per sq. ft. and that of a commercial building on a main road is @ Rs. 36 per sq. ft. The rental value of a residential building on a road other than principal main road and main road is fixed @ Rs. 6 per sq. ft. and that of a commercial building @ Rs. 18 per sq. ft. Other rates are similarly fixed under this notification. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Assessment Rules and the two notifications issued by the Corporation in terms thereof were bad as they suffered from the vice of double delegation. He pointed out that Rule 227 of the Act empowered the State Government alone to make rules consistent with the Act. Similarly Sec. 130(1) also envisaged rules made by the State Government alone. It was submitted that in exercise of these powers, the State Government had framed the Assessment Rules which were quite incomplete in themselves and could not be made operative without the aid of the supplement notifications issued by the Corporation. It was submitted that the State Government had failed to exercise the power which the Legislature had conferred upon it and had handed down and further delegated the right to take material and effective decision to a body to whom the power did not belong. It was submitted that the State Government had failed to exercise the power which the Legislature had conferred upon it and had handed down and further delegated the right to take material and effective decision to a body to whom the power did not belong. It was further pointed out that no provision of the Act conferred upon the Corporation any power or authority to frame rules, sub-rules, regulations or bye-laws and this power could not be conferred upon it under the rules framed by the State Government which itself was a delegatee under the Act, 16. Learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. R. B. Mahto, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation defended the impugned rules and the notifications and submitted that they could not be held bad on the ground of double delegation. Mr. Mahto submitted that all cases of sub-delegation not be held bad per se and it must be examined whether the sub-delegation was under the control of an authority/agency who in turn was under the effective control of the legislative. It was pointed out that although under the Assessment Rules certain tasks were assigned to the Corporation and certain details were left out to be worked out by it, yet in all cases either relating to the classification of roads [under Rule 3(2)] or relating to the fixation of rates, of rental value per sq. fit. [under Rule 5 (1)] or relating to the revision of rates of taxes (under Rule 7), the Corporations action were made subject to the prior approval of the State Government. In other words, even in areas where the details were left out to be filled up by the Corporation, it could not act on its own but only under close control, scrutiny and examination by the State Government, the principal delegatee under the Act. The counsel went on to submit that to say that the Corporation would issue a notification with the prior approval of the State Government was to mean that actually the notification was issued by the State Government with the aid and in consultation with the Corporation. Mr. Mahto relied upon several decisions in this regard. The counsel went on to submit that to say that the Corporation would issue a notification with the prior approval of the State Government was to mean that actually the notification was issued by the State Government with the aid and in consultation with the Corporation. Mr. Mahto relied upon several decisions in this regard. Sufficient here is to take note of only one Supreme Court decision in the case of Delhi Municipality V/s. B.C.S. and W. Mills -- , wherein the following passage (vide para 29) is to be found on the question of legislative guidance for delegated legislations: What from the guidance should take is again a matter which cannot be stated in general terms. 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 legislator. There may be other ways in which guidance may be provided. It may consist in the supervision by Government of she rate of fixation 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 preeminently 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, it in one form or another, it may be said that there is guidance for fixing rates of taxation and power assigned to the local body for fixing the rates is not uncontrolled and uncanalised. (Emphasis added) The afore-quoted passage fully supports Mr. Mahtos contention and I am inclined to hold that the Assessment Rules and the Corporations notifications cannot be characterised as bad on account of double delegation. 17. The counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the three provisions which form the core of the new scheme infringed Article 14 of the Constitution and were ultra vires Secs. 123 and 130 of the Act. These were, (i) Rule 3(l)(a), (ii) Rule 3(l)(c) and (iii) Rule 5 of the Assessment Rules. 17. The counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the three provisions which form the core of the new scheme infringed Article 14 of the Constitution and were ultra vires Secs. 123 and 130 of the Act. These were, (i) Rule 3(l)(a), (ii) Rule 3(l)(c) and (iii) Rule 5 of the Assessment Rules. According to the petitioners, these provisions treated unequals as equals and hence led to arbitrary, unfair, and unjust consequences. In operation, these provisions also led to determination of ARV of holdings regardless of their actual rental capacity and for this reason they were ultra vires Secs. 123 and 130 of the Act. In respect of the above provisions, the following submissions were advanced: (1) It was submitted that Rule 5(2) which provided that the ARV of a house would be the multiple of its carpet area and the rate of rental value per sq. ft. fixed by the Corporation was arbitrary and unreasonable. The provision evisaged a mode that was too simplistic and mechanical and was based on the presumption that the rent of a house increased in direct proportion to its area. This, according to the petitioners was contrary to reality and the fact was that the rental did not increase in arithmetical progression but on a diminishing scale with the increase in the size of the house. Learned Counsel submitted that it was both logical and common knowledge that a smaller house attracted a large number of desirous persons whereas in the case of a large house the number of potential tenants was much smaller and the fewer demand is bound to be reflected in the relatively lower rental value of larger holdings. (2) It was also submitted that the classification (of types of construction) was both violative of Article 14 for treating unequals as equals and ultra vires Secs. 130 and 136 of the Act for paying no heed to the annual letting value of holdings as stipulated in the two sections of the Act, It was submitted that the classification of the bare structures and the authorities framing the rules seem to have over looked that the type of construction (of the structure) was but one factor influencing the rental that a holding was capable of fetching. The classification missed the point that what were let out on rental (particularly in case of residential houses) were complete and finished houses and not bare structures and the rental value of a holding was also influenced by the quality of its finish and the appurtenances, facilities and conveniences available with it. For example there may be two houses equal in carpet area and having the same situation. One of them may have front and back gardens and a first class finish with marble floors, matching walls, high class wood work and very expensive toilet, plumbing and electrical fittings. The other house may be without any open space and with very ordinary finishing ; floors of grey cement wood work of cheap timber with doors which would look awkwardly, cheap plumbing, toilet and electrical fittings. It does not require any imagination to realise that the rent the two house are capable of fetching would be vastly different and yet the impugned rules would treat them equally and fix the same annual value for the two buildings. (3) Coming to the classification of roads [under Rule 3(1)(a)], it was similarly pointed out that the classification was wholly inadequate and incomplete, it was submitted that although the classification comprised of three heads, there were only two heads based on positive similarity while the third head involved a negative criterion only, that is to say, it took under its sweep all streets, lanes, bylanes, gullies, alleys, passages, pathways etc. which would not qualify as principal main road or main road. It was submitted that in case a great variety of elements were classified only under two positive heads and a residuary or negative head, then the residuary head was bound to become so big and elastic as to accommodate highly disparate elements which would not have anything, in common but for the negative criterion that they did not belong to either of the two positive heads of classification. This is bound to lead to inequalities and unequals being treated as equals. Applying it to the facts of this case, it was argued that there are streets, lanes, bye-lanes etc. in the heart and centre of Patna. These would not qualify either as principal main road or main road and have, in fact, been omitted to be so classified in the Corporations notification. Similarly there are streets, lanes, gullies, alleys, passages, pathways etc. in the heart and centre of Patna. These would not qualify either as principal main road or main road and have, in fact, been omitted to be so classified in the Corporations notification. Similarly there are streets, lanes, gullies, alleys, passages, pathways etc. in the old, highly congested areas of the city commonly known as Patna City. The narrow, congested gullies in the old city have nothing in common with the streets and lanes in the heart of the city excepting that both fall in the residuary category. Again, their are lanes, passages, pathways etc. in the areas on the fringes of the city with little or no civic amenities. Now clubbing together all the holdings situated on those streets and gullies etc. regardless of the zone or area of the town where they are located, for the purpose of determination of the annual rental value of these houses would not only be unjust and arbitrary but also totally unrealistic having no corelation with the existing rents. (4) It was next submitted that Rule 5 (2) along with the Corporations supplement notification fixing the rates of rental per sq. ft. led to wholly unrealistic and fanciful values of a holding having no co-relation with the existing renting pattern in the city. It was stated in the writ petition that taking Rs. 18 per sq. ft. as the rental value for a purely residential building on a principal main road, the ARV of the petitioners house was fixed at Rs. 1,55,520. It is asserted in the writ petition that the premises in question was actually let out on a rental of Rs. 1200 per month and the judgment dated 27-4-1993 passed by the Munsif III, Patna in an eviction suit relating to the holding is cited in support of the assertion. It is further stated that the rates fixed in the Corporations notification have no basis and are not supported by any survey, enquiry or investigation made by the Corporation in this regard. 18. Mr. Mahto, learned Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that though a taxing provision was also required to satisfy the constitutional guarantees of equality and reasonableness in terms of Article 14, it was well settled that it should be subjected to tests far less rigorous than in the case of an ordinary statutory provision. 18. Mr. Mahto, learned Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that though a taxing provision was also required to satisfy the constitutional guarantees of equality and reasonableness in terms of Article 14, it was well settled that it should be subjected to tests far less rigorous than in the case of an ordinary statutory provision. It was submitted that in taxation, more than any other field, the Legislature possessed the greatest freedom in classification. Mr. Mahto stated the legal position that it was only when the taxing law operated unequally within the same range of selection and could not be justified on the basis of any classification, it could be held violative of Article 14. But added that the burden was on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every concievable basis which might support it. In support of his submissions, he cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the Twyford Tea Company Limited V/s. Kerala State -- . He also relied upon a bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 PLJR 562 paras 41 and 43. The Bench decision of this Court in 1986 PLJR 562 dealt with Entertainment Tax Act and examined the challenge to the levy of tax on the basis of sitting capacity of cinematography hall. 19. Of the two decision cited by Mr. Mahto, I am of the opinion, that in the facts and circumstances of this case the Supreme Court decision is of greater relevance and requires a fuller consideration. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Twyford Tea Company Limited examined the constitutional validity of a Kerala legislation whereunder plantations of seven different kinds (Coconut, Arecanut, Rubber, Cofee, Tea, Cardamom and Pepper) were taxed applying a uniform of rate of Rs. 50 per hectare. It is important to note, however, that in order to ensure equal treatment to the different kinds of plantations, a scheme was evolved for the determination of the plantation (in terms of hectares). The scheme in the case of coconut, arecanut, rubber, cofee and pepper plantations was to divide the yield bearing tree by a certain figure different in case of different products. The quotient was deemed to be extent of plantation and the principle of dividing the total number of trees by different numbers in case of different products was to ensure an equal treatment. The quotient was deemed to be extent of plantation and the principle of dividing the total number of trees by different numbers in case of different products was to ensure an equal treatment. In case of tea and cardamom, however, the extent of plantation was determined on the basis of the extent of lands bearing the yield crops. The Act was challenged as discriminatory on the grounds : (i) that in applying an uniform rate of taxation to different kinds of plantations it treated the different kinds of plantations and the incomes that may be derived from them as equals and (ii) even in the case of tea the same extent of lands in different areas varied in the yield of produce and were capable of giving different incomes and, occordingly, an uniform rate of tax even in case of tea plantations regardless of their annual yield or the annual incomes amounted to treating unequals as equals. The Supreme Court negatived both the contentions. As regards the second submission, it was plantations with discrepant profits to an uniform rate of taxation. The relevant passage is to be found at para 8: In support of the contention that yield of tea varies from estate to estate and district to district (of which figures are already quoted in the petition) the Tea Statistics (1967-68) complied by the Tea Board of India were also cited. It is hardly necessary to refer to the findings of the Tea Board because it may be assumed without discussions that there are differences. It may also be conceded that the uniform tax falls more heavily on some plantations than on others because the profits are widely discrepant. But does that involve a discrimination ? If the answer be in the affirmative hardly any tax direct or indirect would escape the same censure for taxes touch purses of different lengths and the very uniformity of the tax and its equal treatment would become its undoing. The rich and the poor pay the same taxes irrespective of their incomes in may instances such as the sales tax and the profession tax etc. The rich and the poor pay the same taxes irrespective of their incomes in may instances such as the sales tax and the profession tax etc. As regards discrimination on account of subjecting different kinds of plantations to an uniform rate, the Supreme Court found that the Legislature had taken care to ensure an equal treatment by evolving a principle of determinations of the extent of plantations in terms of hectares for the different kinds of plantations. The relevant passage in this regard is to be found at paragraph 10. The Act, no doubt, deals with seven different kinds of plantations and imposes an uniform rate of Rs. 50 per hectare but it lays down principles on which equal treatment is ensured. In the case of cocount, arecanut, rubber, coffee, and pepper plantations, plants capable of yielding produce are to be counted and then the hectares are determined by dividing the total number of plants by a certain figure. This is intended to equalise the different plantations for purposes of taxability. In the remaining two cases the extent of land yielding crop is itself taken as the measure for the tax because it is considered fair and just to treat one actual hectare of crop yielding plantation as equal to the other areas converted into hectares on the basis of the number of plants or trees. Differences in yield between one plantation and another having the same crop, no doubt, arise from situation, altitude and rainfall but they are not the only factors. Otherwise how is it that the same areas give different yield in different years. The respondents have given the figures of yield of Glenmari estate contiguous to Twyford estate. The produce in that estates ranges from 1427 to 1571 Kilograms per hectare which is almost equal to the estates in the Periyar area. The yield of cardamom also varies similarly. In the Highland Produce Co. Ltd., the per acre yield varied from 5770 Ibs. in 1965 to 26,690 Ibs. in 1962. In 1961 per acre yield was 91 Ibs. and in 1962 2288 Ibs. It is obvious that there are circumstances other than situation, rainfall etc. which have made the yield almost 21/2 times as much. In the Highland Produce Co. Ltd., the per acre yield varied from 5770 Ibs. in 1965 to 26,690 Ibs. in 1962. In 1961 per acre yield was 91 Ibs. and in 1962 2288 Ibs. It is obvious that there are circumstances other than situation, rainfall etc. which have made the yield almost 21/2 times as much. While considering this decision, however, it is important to bear in mind that unlike the case in hand where the municipal taxes are tied up with the annual rental value of holdings, under the Kerala Act the tax on the plantations was in the nature of a tax on land and it was not tied up with the annual produce or the annual profit a plantation was capable of yielding. Moreover, in the Supreme Court decision the Court had found that the Legislature had evolved a manner for calculation of the extent of plantation in terms of hectares whereby equality had been successfully achieved in cases of different kinds of plantations. In the case in hand the precise challenge is that the classifications of roads and the types of construction under the rules are so thoroughly incomplete that they fail to bring about any equality but only result in unequals being treated as equals. It is also to be noted that while elaborating the principles on which the decision was based the Supreme Court said as follows vide para 18: Simply stated the law is this : Differences in the light of the object for which the particular legislation is undertaken. This must be based on some reasonable distinction between the cases differentially treated. When differential treatment is not reasonably explained and justified the treatment is discriminatory. If different subjects are equally treated there must be some basis on which the differences have been equalised otherwise discrimination will be found. To be able to succeed in the charge of discrimination a person must establish conclusively that persons equally circumstanced have been treated uneqally and vice versa. (Emphasis added) I have given my most anxious considerations to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties and I am of the opinion that Mr. Mahtos submissions and the decisions cited in support thereof can only effectively repel the first ground of attack by the petitioners that the mode of determination of ARVs on the basis of rental value per sq. ft. Mahtos submissions and the decisions cited in support thereof can only effectively repel the first ground of attack by the petitioners that the mode of determination of ARVs on the basis of rental value per sq. ft. operated prejudicially in case of larger holdings. Such slight and intangible unevennesses are bound to be there in any classification, more so in a classification for taxing purpose and, in my opinion, the mode of determination of ARVs cannot be said to be discriminatory on this score. 20. However, the other criticism against the impugned Assessment Rules (enumerated at serials 2 to 4) appear to me to be well founded and I am afraid that the submissions of Mr. Mahto and the decisions relied upon by him are not quite as effective in meeting those challenges raised by the petitioners and the same have to be sustained. 21. It is to be noted that the petitioners challenge against the fixation of ARV by multiplying a fixed rate of rental per sq. ft. with the carpet area of houses as classified under Rule 3(1)(c) is fully supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in case Lokmanpa Mills Barsi Limited V/s. Barsi Borough Municipality AIR 1961 SC 1368. In this case the Barsi Municipality had resolved that the rental value for levying rates on mills and factories within its limit be fixed at Rs. 40 for every 100 sq. ft. The relevant rule was Rule 2(c) which was as follows: Rule 2(c) : As regards mills, factories and buildings relating thereto the annual letting value shall be fixed at Rs. 40 per 100 sq. ft. or part thereof for every floor, ground floor, or celler and the tax shall be assessed on the said annual letting value at the ordinary rate. Explanation.-The words "buildings pertaining thereto" include buildings in the compound of the mills such as warehouses, godowns, shops of the mills etc. but does not include residential buildings, that is to say, bungalow and out houses. The High Court had saved the validity of the aforesaid rule relying upon one of its earlier decisions wherein it was held that a similar rule had been sanctioned by the Government and it was not shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable and that the valuation of the property by reference to the floor area was not altogether unknown to the law of rating. The High Court had also observed that in assessing the rent which a hypothetical tenant may pay several methods were open to the municipality and if on examination of the cases of all the factory buildings with their jurisdiction, the municipality concluded that the rent which the hypothetical tenant may reasonably be expected to pay for those buildings fits in with the rent which they had fixed by adopting a flat and uniform rate, the principle of fixing the annual letting value on the basis of the floor area would not be open to challenge. 21A. The reasoning of the High Court did not find favour with the Supreme Court which observed as follows (vide para 8). It was assumed in that case that all factory buildings within the area of the Amalner Municipality were alike in essential features and were intended to be used for the purposes which were alike, and that probably the municipality may have been satisfied that the principle enunciated in the rule impugned worked out on the whole as a fair basis for determining the valuation of the building in question. In our view, this approach to a rating problem arising under the Act is not permissible....The vice of the rule lies in an assumed uniformity of return per sq.ft. which structures of different classes which are in their nature not similar, may reasonably fetch it let out to tenant and in the virtual deprivation to the rate payer, of his statutory right to object to the valuation. (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court also said that this made the provisions regarding any objection by way of review of appeal, illusory inasmuch as the only objection the house owner could take under this mode would be relating to the measurement and calculations of the carpet area of the house. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed as follows : (vide para 5); By prescribing valuation computed on the area of the factory building, the municipality not only fixed arbitrarily the annual letting value which bore no relation to the rental which a tenant may reasonably pay, but rendered the statutory right of the tax payer to challenge the valuation illusory. An Assessment list prepared under Sec. 78 before it is authenticated and finalised, must be published and the tax prayers must be given an opportunity to object to the valuation. An Assessment list prepared under Sec. 78 before it is authenticated and finalised, must be published and the tax prayers must be given an opportunity to object to the valuation. By the assessment list in which the valuation is not based upon the capital valuation of the building or the rental which the building may fetch, but on the floor area, the objection which a tax payer may raise is in substance restricted to the area and not to the valuation. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, fully supports the petitioners criticism (as enumerated at serial Nos. 2 to 4) against the impugned rules. 22 It appers to me that the impuged Assessment Rules were well intended and contained the seeds of a good and reasonable idea which unfortunately floundered for want of proper attention to the details of the scheme. The main shortcoming of the Assessment Rules is that the classifications made thereunder, either in case of roads or in case of types of construction are wholly inadequate and incomplete, and are, therefore, bound to lead to results quite unrelated to the actual letting value of holdings. Had the authorities paid proper attention to the details of the scheme, they would have, perhaps, enlarged the classification regarding nature of constrution by adding more heads and sub-heads classifying not only the types of construction of the structure but also taking into account other features such as quality of finish, appurtenances, provision, conveniences and facilities available with a holding. Perhaps classifying holdings into A, B and C classes depending upon the quality of finish etc. in addition to the types of construction of the structure would have gone a long way in meeting the challenge advanced by the petitioners. 23. Similarly the three possible heads under which all the roads of Patna are to be classified for determining the locational value of holding is wholly incomplete to say the least. Perhaps, if the authorities had taken care to divide the entire city into different zones or areas and had then proceeded to classify the roads, streets lanes and gullies in each zone, on an objective basis and under a larger number of heads then the petitioners challenge could have been easily met. The necessity to divide the city into zones, in the case of Patna is best illustrated by Ashok Raj Path. The necessity to divide the city into zones, in the case of Patna is best illustrated by Ashok Raj Path. This road, over 10-12 kilometres long runs through the better part of the entire length of the city. It passes through the new parts of the city where markets and shops and the main hospital and the university are located and it also passes through the old and congested city where it narrows down considerably. In the Corporations notification the whole of Ashok Rajpath has been classified as "principal main road". Now I find it difficult to accept that all holdings on this road (either in the commercial class or in the residential class) would have the same rental value regardless of whether they are situated in the new city (commonly known as Bankipore) or in the old city commonly known as Patna City). In my view, a road like Ashok Rajpath can only be handled properly by dividing the city into different zones. 24. However, as the relevant provisions contained in Rule 3 (l)(a) and (c) stand at present, I have no option but to hold and declare that these infringe Article 14 of the Constitution and are ultra vires Secs. 123 and 130 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. 25. Coming to the two notifications issued by the Corporation. I find that these are equally indicative of the slipshod manner in which the scheme is sought to implemented. First, taking up the notification fixing the rental value per sq. ft. in terms of Rule 5 (1) it is to be found that in the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Corporation, there is absolutely no indication of the objective materials that went into consideration for determining the rates. It is asserted in the writ petition that the holding in question was actually let out for a monthly rental of Rs. 1,200 (i.e., an annual rent of Rs. 14,400) and that it was quite impossible to let it out for the annual rent of Rs. 1,55,520. In reply, had the Corporation shown that the rate of rental per sq. ft. was determined on the basis of some field survey, enquiry or investition then the objections raised by the petitioners could have been easily met. 14,400) and that it was quite impossible to let it out for the annual rent of Rs. 1,55,520. In reply, had the Corporation shown that the rate of rental per sq. ft. was determined on the basis of some field survey, enquiry or investition then the objections raised by the petitioners could have been easily met. But no material has been brought on record to show that any neighbouring holding or for that matter any holding on the old Patna byepass road had been let out for Rs. 4.50 per sq. ft. per month. This is not to say that no house on that road could be let out at that rate. One may speculate that there may be houses on that road which would be fetching rent at this rate or even higher rate. On the other hand, there may also be houses on the same road which would fetching rent at a much lower rate than the one fixed under the notification. However, it was for the Corporation to answer and satisfy the Court that the rates had been fixed on the basis of some objective cogent materials. The Corporation has not done so. 26. Coming to the notification issued under Rule 3(2) relating to the classification of roads I find that the inadequacy inherent in Rule 3(1)(a) has only been greatly aggravated by classifying the roads without much application of mind. Having held Rule 3(1) as bad and void, it is no longer necessary to go into the details of the classification made in the notification but simply to indicate and to provide future guidance it must be observed that the classification of roads also suffers from complete inapplication of mind to the details. For example classifying Hardinge Road, as a principal main road and putting Desh Ratna Marg (perhaps, the most prestigious road in the town connecting the main Secretariat with the Governors house) Strand Road, Circular Road and McDonel Road in the residury category defies logic. The very basis said to have been adopted by the Corporation, namely, intensity of traffic and commercial activity appears to be lop sided and unreasonable. For consideration of space I do not propose to dilate on the question of classification of roads by the Corporation otherwise the classification appears to be so unreasonable and arbitrary as to be summarily rejected. The very basis said to have been adopted by the Corporation, namely, intensity of traffic and commercial activity appears to be lop sided and unreasonable. For consideration of space I do not propose to dilate on the question of classification of roads by the Corporation otherwise the classification appears to be so unreasonable and arbitrary as to be summarily rejected. I, only like to observe here that classification for the purpose of taxing statute is a serious business and must be undertaken seriously. I, accordingly, hold that both the impugned notifications issued by the Corporation under Rule 3(l)(c) and under Rule 5 (1) are unsustainable and are hereby declared bad and inoperative. 27. Before concluding this judgment it may be oberved that the idea of determining the annual rental value of a holding on floor area bais may not be per se bad. It is also understandable that this method has a number of practical advantages over the existing mode of determination of annual rental value of a holding. But before introducing the floor area method great care must be taken in classification of holdings and in the determination of the rate of rental per square foot so that the annual rental value reckoned by this method may at least approximately correspond with the rental the holding may be reasonably expected to fetch in practice. Otherwise, the scheme cannot be held ultra vires Sections 123 and 130 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. 28. To conclude, Rules 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c) having been declared void and the two impugned notifications also having suffered the same fate, the annual rental value of a holding cannot be determined under the impugned Assessment Rules and no tax can be levied on that basis. Consequently the impugned notices to the petitioners as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 must also be quashed and I hereby do so. 29. In the result, this application is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 550. U.P.Singh, J. 30 I agree.