Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1760 (PAT)

Nawal Kishor Kumar v. State of Bihar

2011-08-19

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
Order Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for the Gaya Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on grounds of limitation, by reason of having been preferred belatedly. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the holding situated at plot no. 370/34 of Anugrah Colony, Gaya bearing holding no. 20D/60, MIG-34 was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 4. It is an admitted position 'that the petitioner had not been depositing .he holding tax to the Corporation and upon gathering information that certain assessment orders had been passed in respect of his holding, he filed a representation before the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Gaya on 21.12.2008 but without response. Subsequently, on gathering information from the Tax Collector of the Corporation that the holding tax in respect of his house had been fixed at Rs. 5,5001- only w.e.f. 1985-86, the petitioner filed his objection before the then Administrator copies whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 series to the writ petition. A reminder was also sent to the Municipal Commissioner subsequently and which appears to have been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.1.2009 placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereby the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Gaya without examining the issue on merit, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for review of the assessment in terms of Section 141 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, on grounds of being barred by limitation. 5. It is contended that as the order dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner was never communicated to the petitioner, he filed an appropriate application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and it is only' then that he gathered information regarding the rates on which the holding tax had been determined in respect of his house w.e.f. 198586, until March, 2009, to the tune of Rs.39,924/- and a further amount of Rs.48,3911- was also imposed by way of interest, thus total amount being Rs. 88,316.31. 6. 88,316.31. 6. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, contending that neither the order of assessment was supplied to the petitioner nor he was supplied with the order rejecting the review dated 20.1.2009 and that it is only upon receipt of the information from the Additional Municipal Commissioner-cum-Public Officer, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 2.3.2009, that the petitioner came to understand the rates on which the tax had been determined in respect of his holding. 7. The order of rejection was brought on record by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and from perusal whereof it is manifest that the objection of the petitioner has simply been rejected on grounds of belated filing and was not examined by the Additional Municipal Commissioner on merits. It has further transpired that .1 certificate proceeding had been initiated for deposit of municipal tax for the period 1985-86 until 1993-94 giving rise to Certificate Case No. 84 of 1993-94 and it is pending before the Deputy Collector (Certificate Officer), Gaya. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputing the position submits that although the holding is in the name of the petitioner having been allotted under a scheme by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna and for which he also holds supportive documents of allotment, the, certificate proceeding has been initiated against his father who is not the owner of the property and thus the proceedings is not maintainable and the petitioner is not required to respond to the same. 9. Be that as it may, it is manifest from' the order rejecting the objection of the petitioner dated 20.1.2009 placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that the Additional Municipal Commissioner has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and has simply rejected the same on grounds of having been filed belatedly. 10. As the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that neither the order of assessment was ever communicated to the petitioner nor the order of rejection of his review petition was communicated to him, nor any documents has been brought on record of the proceedings by the respondent Corporation demonstrating the communication of the orders aforementioned, the petitioner deserves consideration of his grievance by the statutory authority and cannot be deprived of the same on the technicalities of limitation. 11. 11. That being the position, the order dated 20.1.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Gaya to consider the objection of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within . a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. The writ petition is disposed of.