JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri C.K. Parekh, Advocate for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing notification dated 22.9.2014 issued by Nagar Ayukt/Municipal Commissioner, Saharanpur published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.1.2015 in so far as it relates to imposition of show tax on Cinema Halls, whereby rate of show tax has been revised from Rs. 20/- to 100/- per show. 3. Petitioner is an association of Cinema exhibitors running Cinema Halls at Saharanpur registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1860”). Earlier Saharanpur had Nagar Palika governed by the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1916”) but vide notification dated 1.10.2009 published by State Government, exercising power under Section 3 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1959”), read with Article 243-Q(1) of Constitution, covering a larger urban area of Saharanpur, it has been notified as Municipal Corporation and erstwhile Municipal Council stood dissolved. Since the date Municipal Council, Saharanpur has been notified as Municipal Corporation, no election has been held to constitute an elected body of Corporation at Saharanpur and it is still functioning under the Administrator who is exercising all powers of Corporation by virtue of Section 8(4) of Act, 1959, which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2005. 4. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, informed that this Amendment Act No. 23 of 2005 has been declared ultra vires of Constitution by this Court vide judgment dated 5.12.2011 passed in Misc. Bench No. 11226 of 2011 (Sandeep alias Sandeep Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others). We are also informed that State has preferred appeal before Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34436 of 2011, which is pending and Court has only extended period for holding election. 5. Be that as it may, case set up by petitioner is that procedure for imposition of tax has been provided in Sections 199 to 204 of Act, 1959. 5. Be that as it may, case set up by petitioner is that procedure for imposition of tax has been provided in Sections 199 to 204 of Act, 1959. Without following said procedure Chief Tax Assessment Officer, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur published a notice on 8.8.2014 that a decision has been taken to revise rates of various taxes and fees and any person objecting thereto may file his objection. Thereafter alleging that no objection was filed, impugned notification dated 22.9.2014 has been published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.1.2015. 6. It is said that process followed by respondents is inconsistent with statutory provisions and impugned notification in so far as it has revised rate of show tax is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also said that in the present case notification has been issued by Municipal Commissioner and not State Government. Municipal Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to revise such rate of show tax. It is said that power of Corporation has been conferred, to be exercised by Administrator, appointed under Section 8-AA and Municipal Commissioner has not been conferred such power. He is an employee of Corporation appointed under Section 58 of Act, 1959. He cannot function as Corporation and discharge functions as a substitute for Corporation. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stating that prior to 1.10.2009 there existed a Nagar Palika Parishad for City Saharanpur functioning under the provisions of Act, 1916. With effect from 1.10.2009, a notification was issued under Section 3 of Act, 1959 read with Article 243-Q(1) of Constitution and thereby Nagar Palika Parishad was replaced by Municipal Corporation. Nagar Palika Parishad during its functioning had already imposed certain taxes and fees under the provisions of Act, 1916. Show tax, i.e., Theater Tax was imposed under Section 128(1)(iii)(a) of Act, 1916. Petitioner-Members were paying show tax at the rate of Rs. 20/- per show prior to 1.10.2009. The State Government vide order dated 25.11.1995 informed that now for publication of rules and bye-laws of Municipalities, prior approval of Municipal Corporation and Nagar Panchayat is not required and as and when such rules and bye-laws are received shall be published in gazette as it is. This Government order was issued by Secretary, Urban Development to Director Printing and Publication. This Government order was issued by Secretary, Urban Development to Director Printing and Publication. With respect to Saharanpur, Nagar Palika Parishad was in fact superseded and District Magistrate, Saharanpur was appointed as Administrator, when by notification dated 1.10.2009 Municipal Corporation, Saharanpur was created. The effect was that District Magistrate, as Administrator, continued to work. It is then said that Municipality is empowered to impose licence fee under Section 294 and it does not violate Article 19 of Constitution. The rate of Rs. 20/- per show has now been revised to Rs. 100/- per show after a long time. By virtue of Section 8-A of Act, 1959 an Administrator in law is deemed to be Corporation, Mayor, Committee or Municipal Corporation. Municipal Commissioner being Administrator is exercising all powers under Act, 1959 in view of judgment dated 27.11.2013 and Government Order dated 24.1.2014. Thereafter several provisions of Act, 1959 are referred to. Sometimes respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have talked about licence fee and sometimes “Show Tax” as if they are not clear which show tax is actually a tax or fee. 8. A supplementary counter-affidavit thereafter has been filed which has been sworn by Keshav Prasad, Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur. He has said that sub-section (4) was inserted in Section 8 of Act, 1959 by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2005 but struck down by this Court in Sandeep alias Sandeep Mehrotra (supra). This Court also directed that till a newly elected representative resume work, affairs of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations shall be managed by Executive Officers and Municipal Commissioners. Consequently, State Government on 17.12.2011 issued orders directing District Magistrate to handover charge to Municipal Commissioner. Then details have been given of various Municipal Commissioners worked from time to time which in our view is not relevant. It is said that by virtue of Sections 8-AA and 579-A as read by this Court in Sandeep alias Sandeep Mehrotra (supra), power of administration which was to be exercised by Administrator is to be exercised by Municipal Commissioner. 9. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner, did not dispute that under Act, 1959, Theater Tax can be imposed by Corporation under Section 172(2)(i). However, sub-section (3) of Section 172 provides that Corporation taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1959 and rules and bye-laws framed thereunder. 9. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner, did not dispute that under Act, 1959, Theater Tax can be imposed by Corporation under Section 172(2)(i). However, sub-section (3) of Section 172 provides that Corporation taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1959 and rules and bye-laws framed thereunder. Section 197 provides for certain exemptions from Theater Tax. Sections 199 to 206 lay down procedure for imposition of taxes. 10. Sections 199, 200, 201, 202 and 203 read as under: “199. Framing of preliminary proposals : (1) When a Corporation desires to impose a tax specified in sub-section (2) of Section 172 it shall by resolution direct the Executive Committee to frame proposals specifying— (a) the tax, being one of the taxes described in sub-section (2) of Section 172 which it desires to impose; (b) the persons or class of persons to be made liable, and the description of property or other taxable thing or circumstances in respect of which they are to be made liable, except where and in so far as any class or description is already sufficiently defined under clause (a) or by this Act; (c) the amount or rate leviable from each such person or class of persons; (d) any other matter referred to in Section 219 which the State Government requires by rule to be specified. (2) Upon a resolution being passed under sub-section (1) the Executive Committee shall frame the proposals and also prepare a draft of the rules which it desires the State Government to make in respect of the matters referred to in Section 219. (3) The Executive Committee shall, thereafter, publish in the manner prescribed by rule the proposals framed under sub-section (1) and the draft rules framed under sub-section (2) alongwith a notice in the form to be prescribed by rule. 200. Procedure subsequent to framing proposals : (1) Any inhabitant of the City may, within two weeks from the publication of the said notice, submit to the Corporation an objection in writing to all or any of the proposals framed under the preceding section, and the Corporation shall take any objection so submitted into consideration and pass orders thereon by special resolution. (2) If the Corporation decides to modify the proposals of the Executive Committee, or any of them the Municipal Commissioner shall publish the modified proposals and, if necessary, revised draft rules alongwith a notice indicating that the proposals and rules (if any) are in modification of proposals and rules previously published for objection. (3) Any objections which may be received to the modified proposals shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed in sub-section (1). (4) When the Corporation has finally settled its proposals, the Municipal Commissioner shall submit them alongwith the objections (if any) made in connection therewith to the State Government. 201. Power of State Government to reject, sanction or modify proposal : Upon receipt of the proposals and objection under the preceding section the State Government may either refuse to sanction the proposals or return them to the Corporation for further consideration or sanction them without modification or with such modification not involving an increase of the amount to be imposed, as it seems fit. 202. Resolution of Corporation directing imposition of taxes : (1) When the proposals have been sanctioned by the State Government, the State Government, after taking into consideration the draft rules submitted by the Corporation, shall proceed forthwith to make such rules in respect of the tax as for the time being it considers necessary. (2) When the rules have been made the order of sanction and a copy of the rules shall be sent to the Corporation, and thereupon the Corporation shall by special resolution direct the imposition of the tax with effect from a date to be specified in the resolution. 203. Imposition.—(1) A copy of the resolution passed under Section 202 shall be submitted to the State Government. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the resolution the State Government shall notify in the official Gazette, the imposition of the tax from the appointed date, and the imposition of tax shall in all cases be subject to the condition that it has been so notified. (3) A notification of the imposition of a tax under sub-section (2) shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis added) 11. (3) A notification of the imposition of a tax under sub-section (2) shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis added) 11. For the purpose of making any alteration or abolition of a tax in respect of matters specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 199(1), Section 204 provides that procedure prescribed in Sections 199 to 202, as far as, may be followed. Section 199(1)(c) talks of amount or rate and, therefore, if there is any alteration in the matter of amount or rate procedure prescribed by Sections 199 to 202 has to be followed. 12. A combined reading of aforesaid provisions show that following procedure has to be followed: (1) A resolution by Executive Committee to be passed to frame proposals specifying tax, the person/class of persons and description, upon whom it is to be leviable and the amount of rate etc. (2) After resolution is passed the Executive Committee shall frame proposal and also a draft of rule. Proposal as well as draft of rule both shall be published by Executive Committee in the manner prescribed alongwith notice in the form prescribed by rule. (3) Any inhabitant of city may make objections within two weeks from the date of publication of said notice. (4) If any objection is made the Corporation shall consider same and pass order thereon by special resolution. (5) If Corporation decides to modify proposal of Executive Committee the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall publish modified proposals and, if necessary, revised draft rule alongwith a notice indicating that proposals and rules are in modification of proposals and rules previously published, inviting objections. (6) If any objection is again received against modified proposal it shall be considered in the manner prescribed in Section 200(1). (7) When proposal is finally settled by Corporation, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall submit alongwith objections received to State Government. (8) The State Government after receiving proposal and objection consider the same and may either refuse to sanction proposal or return same or sanction same without modification or with such modification not involving an increase of amount to be imposed, as it seems fit. (9) When proposal has been sanctioned by State Government ti shall proceed to make such rule in respect of such tax. (9) When proposal has been sanctioned by State Government ti shall proceed to make such rule in respect of such tax. When rules are made by State Government, the order of sanction and copy of rules shall be furnished to Corporation who shall by special resolution direct imposition of tax with effect from the date specified in resolution. (10) A copy of resolution passed under Section 202 shall be submitted to State Government. (11) Upon receipt of copy of resolution the State Government shall notify in official gazette imposition of tax from appointed date. 13. Admittedly in present case aforesaid procedure has not been followed. What has been done is that Tax Superintendent published a proposal of revision of show tax on 8.8.2014 giving ten days time to file objections and thereafter Municipal Commissioner approved said proposal on 20.9.2014 and that has been published in gazette on 10.1.2015. Under Act, 1959 two weeks time is permitted to make objection under Section 201 but in the present case ten days time was given for inviting objections. Said proposal thereafter was approved by Municipal Commissioner and notified in gazette. There is no sanction or approval of proposal by State Government as contemplated under Sections 200 and 201. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, have completely misdirected themselves by making an amendment in existing provisions imposing show tax which was not permissible without following procedure prescribed under Sections 199 to 202 by virtue of provision of Section 204 of Act, 1959. 14. It is well-settled that procedure prescribed in statute to do something has to be followed in words and spirit and anything done otherwise would be patently illegal. This principle was recognized in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and, thereafter it has been reiterated and followed consistently by the Apex Court in a catena of judgements, which we do not propose to refer all but would like to refer a few recent one. 15. In Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4) SCC 9 in para 23 of the judgment the Court held : “It is a settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 16. 15. In Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4) SCC 9 in para 23 of the judgment the Court held : “It is a settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 16. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, 2002 (1) SCC 633 , it was held : “It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself.” 17. The judgments in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Dhananjaya Reddy (supra) laying down the aforesaid principle have been followed in Captain Sube Singh and others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, 2004 (6) SCC 440 . 18. In Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others, 2005 (13) SCC 477 , it was held : “It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning.” 19. In State of Jharkhand and others v. Ambay Cements and another, 2005 (1) SCC 368 in para 26 of the judgment, the Court held : “It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.” 20. In this case it is not necessary for us to go into the question, whether Municipal Commissioner can validly exercise powers of Corporation, Executive Committee etc. but for our purpose assuming what is contended by respondents that Municipal Commissioner is entitled and empowered to discharge all functions etc. of Corporation and Executive Committee etc., still if procedure prescribed for certain things, has not been followed, the act performed would be illegal and that is how impugned notification is not sustainable. Hence, impugned notification, in so far as it has enhanced rate of show tax, is illegal. 21. In the result, writ petition is allowed. of Corporation and Executive Committee etc., still if procedure prescribed for certain things, has not been followed, the act performed would be illegal and that is how impugned notification is not sustainable. Hence, impugned notification, in so far as it has enhanced rate of show tax, is illegal. 21. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned notification dated 22.9.2014 issued at the instance of Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur, in so far as it relates to show tax, is hereby set aside. 22. No order as to costs.