Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 337 (JHR)

Biswanath Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2003-03-12

TAPEN SEN

body2003
Order Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha 'Astik', learned counsel for the Respondents No.2 and .3. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 3445 of 2001, the Petitioner (Bishwanath Pandit) has prayed for quashing the notice dated 9.1.2001 (Annexure 5) by reason whereof the Petitioner has been asked to pay Municipal Tax of Rs. 4,123.20. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 7.10.1998 (Annexure 2) by which that Municipal Tax was enhanced from Rs. 352.50 quarterly in place of Rs. 153/- annually. 3. In W.P. (C) No. 2292 of 2001 the Petitioner (Dinanath Dralia) has prayed for quashing the notice dated 28.01.1999 (Annexure 2) by which the Holding Tax has been enhanced fourteen times against the earlier rate which was Rs. 114.75. 4. In W.P. (C) No. 3814 of 2001, the Petitioner (Rambhavati Devi) has prayed for quashing the notice dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure 2) whereby the Municipal Tax was enhanced to Rs. 352.50 quarterly in place of Rs. 37.55 in respect of Holding No. 101 and Rs. 705/- quarterly in place of Rs. 124.35 in respect of Holding No.1 07 of Ward No.7. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 2050 of 2001, the petitioner (Rajeev Kumar) has prayed for quashing the notice dated 03.02.1999 (Annexure 2) by which Holding Tax in respect of Holding No. 343 (new) situated in Ward No. 12 was enhanced to Rs. 1,937.50 quarterly for the year 1998-99 in place of Rs. 114.75 quarterly. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in all the cases, namely, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey has stated that the Deoghar Municipality was superseded by Notification No. 1202 dated 08.06.1995 and since then the functions of the Commissioners are being performed by the Special Officer. 7. All the Petitioners have alleged that the impugned Notices/Orders were issued by the Respondents enhancing the Holding Tax totally disproportionately without following any of the procedures laid down under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that "elaborate procedure has been laid down in Chapter IV and also under other Chapters of the aforementioned Act and only upon strict adherence thereto, the Respondents could have enhanced the taxes. He further submits that without following the procedure, the enhancement were totally illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that "elaborate procedure has been laid down in Chapter IV and also under other Chapters of the aforementioned Act and only upon strict adherence thereto, the Respondents could have enhanced the taxes. He further submits that without following the procedure, the enhancement were totally illegal and without jurisdiction. The Petitioners have all stated that after receiving the Notices, they first filed a Petition in the prescribed format on 17.11 .1998 and when they did not hear anything from the Respondents, they filed Objections. Subsequently even the Objections were not dealt with in accordance with law and the Petitioners had no knowledge about what happened to the same as a result of which they filed Application for Information. 9. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that in the meantime, the Petitioners received the impugned Notices even during the pendency of the Appeals, which were not disposed off. 10. These cases were taken up earlier and on 21.02.2003, Mr. Ani! Kumar Jha 'Astik', learned counsel appearing for the Respondents had submitted that the Objections had already been disposed off on 12.03.1999. However, that order was not brought on record by the Respondents and therefore an opportunity was given to the Respondents to file an Affidavit bringing on record the orders for purposes of determining as to in what manner the Objections of the Petitioners had been dealt with. The matters were ordered to be listed on 11th March, 2003. 11. Again on 11th March, 2003 no Affidavit was forthcoming, but Mr. Anil Kumar Jha 'Astik' assured that he would file Affidavit by 4.00 p.m. on that day and therefore, these cases were ordered to be listed today. Today, when the cases were called out, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha 'Astik' stated that due to personal difficulties he could not file the Affidavits by 4.00 p.m., but in any event, and in sufficient compliance of the order dated 11.03.2003 he has, in fact, filed the Affidavit today. Those Affidavits are now on board and they are being considered in view of the personal difficulty of Mr. Anil Kumar Jha 'Astik' stated that due to personal difficulties he could not file the Affidavits by 4.00 p.m., but in any event, and in sufficient compliance of the order dated 11.03.2003 he has, in fact, filed the Affidavit today. Those Affidavits are now on board and they are being considered in view of the personal difficulty of Mr. Anil Kumar Jha 'Astik' not with standing a specific order having been passed yesterday to the effect that they would be filed by 4.00 p.m. At paragraph 4 of the Additional Counter Affidavit, which has been filed today, the Respondents have stated that after receiving the Notice, the Petitioners had filed Objection in the prescribed manner and after receiving the said Objection, the Appeal Committee sent information relating to appearance on 12.03.1999. It has further been stated that on 12.03.1999, the Appeal Committee, after hearing, passed final order. At paragraph 5 of the Additional Counter Affidavit, the Respondents have stated that against the aforementioned final order no Appeal had been filed as alleged by the Petitioners. 12. From a perusal of the Counter Affidavit, it is apparent that the Respondents have not cared to comply with the specific order dated 21.02.2003 by which this Court had directed that the order should be brought on record. All that the Respondents have again stated in the Additional Counter Affidavit is, that the Appeal Committee, on 12.03.1999, passed the final order. This order has not been brought on record inspite of specific direction. Additionally paragraph 8 is totally blank inasmuch as it has not been stated as to whether they are true to knowledge or true to information. In that view of the matter, this Affidavit is a totally perfunctory affidavit filed only for purposes of filing the affidavit. It shows scant regard for the process of the High Court and this Court does not appreciate the stand of the Municipality of Deoghar. Let it be recorded that in future if any such lapse comes to the knowledge of this Court, this Court shall be constrained to initiate very serious action against the Municipality and its officers for showing such scant regard to the process of the Court. 13. What has been stated above is only to make the Respondents aware of their duties in future. 13. What has been stated above is only to make the Respondents aware of their duties in future. So far as this case is concerned, the Affidavits being totally silent, perfunctory and not having brought on record the order inspite of repeated orders, this Court has no option but to quash and set aside the impugned Notice and the Demands. The matter stands remitted to the Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality who will now proceed in accordance with law denovo. In the meantime and till final decision which must be taken in accordance with law, the Respondents will allow the Petitioners to pay Municipal Taxes strictly in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court earlier. With the aforesaid directions and observations the Writ Applications are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.