CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7824 OF 1993
====
In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
=====
Smt. Jugeshwari Devi W/o Dr.R.C.Ram, Rampur Road, Bazar
Samiti Bahadpur Patna P.S. Kadamkuan District Patna
—— Petitioners
versus
1. Patna Municipal Corporation through the
Administrator, Patna
2. Assistant Administrator, Bankipur Circle Patna
Municipal Corporation,Both at Budh Marg, P.S.
Kotwali, District Patna.
------ Respondents
=====
For the petitioner : Mr. Birendra Mohan Singh
And Mrs. Anjana Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandra Shekhar
=====
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J., The background to filing of the
present writ application is on going dispute between the
petitioner and the respondent Patna Municipal
Corporation over what would be the correct assessment of
tax for the holding of the petitioner in question. Some
time in the year 1992 the annual rental value of the
property under the purported exercise of power under
section 139 of Patna Municipal Corporation Act was made
at Rs. 13,000/- but on an appeal vide order dated
20.7.1992 this amount was reduced to Rs. 11,000/- and
the petitioner started paying the holding tax on such a
decision but in yet another action of the respondents
the issue of annual rental value of the property was
2
reopened by respondent Patna Municipal Corporation and a
figure of Rs. 80,000/- was worked out. A demand was
raised on the petitioner and the petitioner decided to
appeal against the said demand. From perusal of
annexure-4 it is evident that the matter had been heard
over many years but hearing was nothing substantive.
Except for adjournments, the merit of the matter was
never gone into. On 14.5.1993 the administrator in his
order records that the petitioner would pay 50% of the
annual rental value of Rs. 80,000/- and the merit of the
matter would be decided at a later date. When no final
adjudication was made for quite some time, petitioner
decided to file the present writ application on the
ground that the demand raised cannot be enforced in
absence of a final adjudication attaining finality in
view of mandate of law laid down under section 153 of
the Act. He is precluded from challenging the order
before the District Judge and testing the validity of
such a decision. His contention is that he is being
forced to pay taxes even without a proper assessment
having been finally made against him.
2. A perusal of annexure-4 is a clear indication
of adhocism in decision making by the respondent Patna
Municipal Corporation. The power of deciding annual
rental value is surely within their domain under the Act
but a decisive opinion will have to be recorded one way
or the other to at least allow every person to move the
3
next higher forum and test its validity, if not the
reasonableness of such a decision.
3. Since in the present case the administrator
has not rendered his opinion on the merits of the matter
he is precluded from demanding municipal holding tax
from the petitioner on the basis of annual rental value
of Rs. 80,000/- or even payment of 50% thereof. The
orders and the demand of holding tax raised are
quashed. Liberty however, is granted to the concerned
authority that he shall decide the matter in accordance
with law and then thereafter enforce the same.
4. The writ application is accordingly allowed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)
PATNA HIGH COURT
Dated 4.12.2008
AI/NAFR