Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 324 (JHR)

Ranchi Municipal Corporation v. Bhagwati Devi

2011-04-11

BHAGWATI PRASAD, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
Judgment By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In these writ petitions, the orders of Permanent Lok Adalat, passed in P.L.A. No. 758 of 2005 and others, are under challenge. By the orders, which are under challenge, the Permanent Lok Adalat has ordered that the tax imposed by the Municipal Corporation, Ranchi under Patna Municipal Corporation Act is not liable to be sustained, because there is no regular supply of water and other amenities in the localities and therefore, such tax cannot be imposed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat, has asserted that the jurisdiction to decide the issue, pertaining to certain disputes, is delineated under Section 22-C, where the disputes can be taken to the Permanent Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat will decide those cases. The learned counsel submitted that under Section 22-A, in the definition clause (b) there are two Sub-clauses i.e. Sub clause (iii) and Sub clause (iv), which are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: “(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or 4. None of these two clauses will cover and give jurisdiction about the interference, as made by the Permanent Lok Adalat in relation to the imposition of tax. The imposition of tax is a sovereign Act. The validity of imposition of tax is not under challenge as it is no more resintegra, since the same has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2704 of 1995. That being the position, whether the imposition of tax by the Municipal Corporation Act can be held to be valid and whether its enforceability can be adjudged by the Permanent Lok Adalat or not, will have to be looked into only in the light of definitions of Public Utility Services, Sub-clauses (iii) and (iv), as delineated in Section 22-A, referred to hereinabove. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid Sub-clauses only speak of the services in relation to the delineated subjects and not the imposition of tax. The learned counsel further submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat will have jurisdiction only in relation to the matters where the value of property does not exceed Rupees ten lakhs. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid Sub-clauses only speak of the services in relation to the delineated subjects and not the imposition of tax. The learned counsel further submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat will have jurisdiction only in relation to the matters where the value of property does not exceed Rupees ten lakhs. In relation to the imposition of tax, it is not possible to assess the value of the tax which is liable to be levied and collected and therefore, it again lacks the jurisdiction under the proviso of Section 22-C, where the cases which are cognizable by Permanent Lok Adalat has been delineated and the proviso provides further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees. The learned counsel has further argued that the very jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat is in relation to such matters where both the parties can give and take something and arrive at a settlement. In the present scenario, the writ petitioners could not have arrived at any settlement because there was no question of anything being given by the Municipal Corporation to the opposite parties and since the basic ingredient of the settlement is absent where the writ petitioner was not in a position to give anything, the question of settlement being not germane in the issue, the same could not have been taken cognizance by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The writ petitioners have further argued that before arriving at the finding, the Permanent Lok Adalat has not looked into the possibility of the settlement and that may be because the question of settlement was hardly within the ambit and scope of the dispute and in this regard there is no finding recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat in terms of Sections 22-C clauses (5) and (6) and in that view of the matter the members of the Permanent Lok Adalat have almost misdirected themselves in deciding the issue in question. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the question is covered by Section 22-A, B (3) and (4) and therefore, it cannot be said that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the same. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the question is covered by Section 22-A, B (3) and (4) and therefore, it cannot be said that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the same. It was further urged that it is a question of a tax which is being put on the locality without there being any service rendered and therefore, the tax is not liable to be imposed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the argument raised and also in view of the statutory provisions, we do not see that the legal provisions make it possible for the Permanent Lok Adalat to look into the enforceability of an Act, which is an Act enforcing a levy of tax and what it could do, is only contained in Section 22 where the dispute in between the parties could be brought before the Lok. Adalat. Here, it cannot be said to be a dispute because the tax is being levied under the statute and that cannot be said to be a cause of action, available to be considered to be a dispute at all. Further, under Section 22-A, B clause (3) and (4) the Public Utility Services do not include the imposition of taxes. In that view of the matter when the validity of the provisions imposing tax had already been upheld by this Court, we do not see that the Permanent Lok Adalat was justified in interfering with the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation in levying the tax. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, these three writ petitions [W.P. (C) No. 6499 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 3347 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 6500 of 2007] are allowed. The order dated 24.8.2007 passed in P.L.A. No. 759 of 2005, order dated 15.3.2005 passed in P.L.A. Case No. 1 of 2005 and order dated 24.8.2007 passed in P.L.A. No. 758 of 2005 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi are accordingly set aside.