ORDER 1. The petitioners before this Court are engaged in the business of Advertising. They are aggrieved by the demand notices issued to them by the Patna Municipal Corporation to pay a heavy sum of money in lieu of the business carried out by them, which demand, according to these petitioners, are dehors of the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). They are also aggrieved by the order of the Patna Municipal Corporation by which it has cancelled the license of the petitioners. 2. There are two sets of arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners of CWJC No. 3949 and some others accept that the Act is applicable to them and they will be governed by the provisions of the Act, while Counsels appearing in the other set of writ applications contend that the Act is not applicable to these petitioners as they are already paying excise tax under the provisions of the Bihar Financial Act, 1981, and as such imposition of tax under the Act would amount to charging dual tax which is not permissible under the law. I will deal with this aspect of the matter as I proceed with the judgment. However, the question which is foremost importance is whether the imposition of tax (royalty) by the Patna Municipal Corporation is justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Act? 3. The background of these cases is that the Patna Municipal Corporation initially was not charging any tax from the Advertisers i.e. the petitioners. Subsequently, a meeting was called in the year 2005 by the then Municipal Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer on 29.08.2005 and it was mutually resolved that before any agencies puts up its advertisement, they have to submit a list of the advertisements, the place and size etc. to the authorized Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation. It was further decided that the Patna Municipal Corporation would charge a royalty of Rs. 1/sq. ft. per year on such hoardings which are displayed on the lands belonging to the Patna Municipal Corporation. With the advent of the Bihar Act 2 of 2007, the Bihar Municipal Corporation defined and enumerated taxes which could be demanded or imposed by the Municipality. 1/sq. ft. per year on such hoardings which are displayed on the lands belonging to the Patna Municipal Corporation. With the advent of the Bihar Act 2 of 2007, the Bihar Municipal Corporation defined and enumerated taxes which could be demanded or imposed by the Municipality. Section 127 of Chapter IV of the Bihar Municipal Act provides the power to levy taxes subject to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. Section 127 (1) (f) envisage that tax can be imposed on advertisement other than advertisement published in the newspapers. By an advertisement issued on 15.01.2007, the Patna Municipal Corporation came out with fresh rates of royalty/tax on advertisements which were accepted by the writ petitioners of CWJC Nos. 3949/2012, 4008/2012, 3963/2012, 4277/2012 and 4797/2012; whereas other writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd set of petitioners) are paying as per the decision taken in the meeting dated 29.08.2005. By proposal 5/1 of resolution no. 18 by the Patna Municipal Corporation in its 19th meeting dated 15.12.2010 noticed that several advertisers had illegally displayed hoardings, whereas some of them who had permission of the Patna Municipal Corporation, had not paid their dues. It was, therefore, decided that (a) all those advertisers (petitioners) who had not paid their dues as per the advertisement issued on 02.11.2007 would be liable to be charged twice the rate fixed under the advertisement under Section 431 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act; (b) The Corporation also decided that hoardings displayed without permission should be removed and such persons would be charged a penalty five times the amount due from them, under Section 431 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. It is, in this context, that the demands were issued, cancelling the licenses or charging the penalty on the basis of the charge of non-payment of royalty/tax. I may point out here that there should be no confusion with respect to the word “royalty”, as what is chargeable is tax on advertisements? Perhaps, there is no provision for charge of royalty under the Act in question. As indicated above, the legal issue involved is whether the Patna Municipal Corporation could charge a tax on advertisements. Section 127 of the Act gives the power to the Municipal Corporation to levy tax. Perhaps, there is no provision for charge of royalty under the Act in question. As indicated above, the legal issue involved is whether the Patna Municipal Corporation could charge a tax on advertisements. Section 127 of the Act gives the power to the Municipal Corporation to levy tax. Sub-section (1) (f) of Section 127 of the Act gives the power to the Municipal Corporation to levy tax on advertisements, other than advertisements published in the newspapers. Section 421 of the Act gives the power to the Municipal Corporation to make regulations from time to time not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Section 422 of the Act gives the Municipal Corporation the power to make regulations subject to certain conditions. Section 422 of the Act reads as follows:- 422. Conditions precedent to making of regulations.- 4. The power to make regulations under this Act is subject to the condition of the regulations being made after previous publication and to the following further conditions, namely :- (a) such draft of regulations shall not be further proceeded with until a period of one month has expired from the date of such publication, (b) for not less than one month during such period, a printed copy of such draft shall be kept in the office of the Municipality for public inspection, and any person shall be permitted at any reasonable time to peruse such draft, free of charge, and (c) printed copies of such draft shall be obtainable by any person requiring such draft on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Empowered Standing Committee.” 5. This section, therefore, requires that the regulations so drafted should not proceed till one month has expired and that such draft shall be kept in the Municipality for public inspection. The requirements under Section 423 of the Act provides that the regulations made by the Municipality under the Act shall not come into effect until they are approved by the State Government and published in the official gazette. The State Government has been given the power to make changes thereunder in the matter, as it deems necessary. These sections relate to the manner in which regulations are to be made under this Act. The State Government has been given the power to make changes thereunder in the matter, as it deems necessary. These sections relate to the manner in which regulations are to be made under this Act. In this context, it may be essential to point out and emphasize that there is also a penalty provided for breach of the regulations under Section 426 of the Act, which specifies the amount that may be charged. These sections become relevant in view of the fact that Chapter 17 deals with tax on advertisements as envisaged under Section 127 (1) (f) of the Act. Sections 145 and 146 are relevant for the purpose of these cases. Section 145 of the Act reads as follows:- “145. Prohibition of advertisements without written permission of Chief Municipal Officer.- (1) No person shall erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building , wall, hoarding, frame post, kiosk, structure, vehicle, neon-sign or sky-sign, any advertisement or display any advertisement to public view in any manner whatsoever (including any advertisement exhibited by means of cinematograph), visible from a public street or public place, in any place within the Municipal area without permission, in writing, of the Chief Municipal Officer, (2) The Chief Municipal Officer shall not grant such permission, if- (a) a licence for the use of the particular site for the purpose of advertisement has not been taken, or (b) the advertisement contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made there under, or (c) the tax, if any, due in respect of the advertisement has not been paid. (3) No person shall broadcast any advertisement, except on radio or television, without the permission, in writing, of the Chief Municipal Officer.” 6. This section speaks of a prohibition for exhibiting any sort of advertisement to public view without the permission of the Chief Municipal Officer. It also prohibits the Chief Municipal Officer from granting permission if there is no license for the use of a particular site for the purpose of displaying an advertisement or if the advertisement contravenes any provisions under the Act, or in case the tax dues has not been paid by the licensee. Section 146 of the Act, on the other hand, requires that the license should be issued in terms of the regulations made under this Act which would provide the terms and conditions of a license. Section 146 of the Act, on the other hand, requires that the license should be issued in terms of the regulations made under this Act which would provide the terms and conditions of a license. Section 146 of the Act reads as follows:- “146. Licence for use of site for purpose of advertisement.- (1) Except under, and in conformity with, such terms and conditions of a licence as the Municipality may, by the regulations, provide, no person being the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, occupier or advertising agent shall use, or allow to be used, any site in any land, building or wall, or erect, or allow to be erected, on any site any hoarding, frame, post, kiosk, structure, vehicle, neon-sign or sky-sign for the purpose of display of any advertisement. (2) For the purpose of advertisement, every person- (a) using any site before the commencement of this Act, within ninety days from the date of such commencement, or (b) intending to use any site, or (c) whose licence for use of any site is about to expire. shall apply for a licence or renewal of licence, as the case may be, to the Chief Municipal Officer in such Form as may be specified by the Municipality. (3) The Chief Municipal Officer shall, after making such inspection as may be necessary and within thirty days of the receipt of the application, grant or renew a licence, as the case may be, on payment of such fee as may be determined by regulations, or refuse or cancel a licence, as the case may be. (4) The Chief Municipal Officer may, if, in his opinion, the proposed site for any advertisement is unsuitable from the considerations of public safety, traffic hazards or aesthetic design, refuse to grant a licence, or to renew any existing licence, within thirty days of the receipt of the application. (5) Every licence shall be for a period of one year except in the case of sites used for any temporary congregation of whatever nature including fairs, festivals, circus, yatra, exhibitions, sports events, or cultural or social programmes. (5) Every licence shall be for a period of one year except in the case of sites used for any temporary congregation of whatever nature including fairs, festivals, circus, yatra, exhibitions, sports events, or cultural or social programmes. (6) The Chief Municipal Officer shall cause to be maintained a register wherein the licences issued under this Section shall be separately recorded in respect of advertisement sites- (a) on telephone, telegraph, tram, electric or other posts or poles erected on or along public or private streets or public places, (b) in lands or buildings, and (c) in cinema-halls, theatres or other places of public resort.” In other words, from perusal of Sections 145 and 146 of the Act, there is no ambiguity regarding the provisions which require that (a) permission has to be taken from the Chief Municipal Officer to exhibit an advertisement; (b) that the permission cannot be granted without a license; and (c) that the license and the terms and conditions thereto have to be specified in the regulations. Admittedly, the regulations have not been framed and as such there is no regulation regarding the manner and conditions under which a license is to be granted, the rates to be charged for exhibiting the advertisements and other details, such as conditions relating to contravention of the regulations etc., which leads to the conclusion that rates fixed by the Patna Municipal Corporation and license granted to the petitioners was dehors the provision of the Act, and at most, it can be termed as an “agreement” between the parties which must be honoured by both the parties. As to whether the demand notices charging penalty and interest is justifiable will be dealt with separately. 7. I shall now deal with the legal issues raised on behalf of those writ petitioners who have been paying the tax/royalty to the Municipal Corporation at the rate fixed by the Municipal Corporation in the year 2005. Apart from the argument that the demand notice imposing penalty and interest is dehors the provisions of the Act, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are paying tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Section 66 of the Finance Act prohibits advertisement without the written permission of the prescribed authority in a prescribed manner. Section 80 of the Finance Act gives power to make rules under the Act. Sanjay Singh, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are paying tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Section 66 of the Finance Act prohibits advertisement without the written permission of the prescribed authority in a prescribed manner. Section 80 of the Finance Act gives power to make rules under the Act. As such, the Bihar Tax on Advertisements Rules, 1982 have been framed which prescribe the manner of filing an application for registration and grant of certificate of registration. The Bihar Tax on Advertisement Act, 2007 enacted on 31st March, 2007 prescribes tax that is chargeable on advertisement published in the news paper and broadcasted by radio and television. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Bihar Tax on Advertisement Rules was promulgated on 20th July, 2007 under the Bihar Finance Act, whereas the Municipal Act was made effective from 05th April, 2007. It is submitted that the position in law is that the later Act would be binding on the petitioners. It is specifically contended that the petitioners are registered and are paying Central Excise Duty to the Government of India, and are required to pay sales tax under the said Act. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the contention is that the petitioners are not liable to pay tax to the Municipality and it has no right to charge tax on advertisements as they are already paying tax under the provisions of the Bihar Tax on Advertisement Rules. This Court is not dealing with this argument in the present set of writ applications in view of the fact that the virus of Section 127 of the Act has been challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, amongst others, this question has also been raised before the Division Bench. This Court is, therefore, proceeding with the issue as to whether the Patna Municipal Corporation is entitled under the Act to demand tax on advertisements and to issue demand notices with respect to penalty and interest on delayed payments? As indicated above, some of these petitioners were utilizing the Government land (Municipal lands) and displaying their hoardings all over the district of Patna. At that stage, the Municipality did not charge any fee, tax/royalty from such advertisers. As indicated above, some of these petitioners were utilizing the Government land (Municipal lands) and displaying their hoardings all over the district of Patna. At that stage, the Municipality did not charge any fee, tax/royalty from such advertisers. For the first time, in the year 2005, there was a meeting between the advertising agencies and the Chief Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation, which was followed in the year 2007 by an advertisement, fixing rates at which the petitioner and those interested in utilizing the lands were to pay taxes. 8. The cancellation of licenses on the ground that there was violation of the terms of an agreement in the advertisement of 2007 as per the Patna Municipal Corporation is justified. Both, the petitioners and the Patna Municipal Corporation had willingly entered into an agreement and were not aggrieved by the Municipality till the year 2012 and as such, it cannot be said that they were not bound by the terms of the advertisement in the year 2007. In fact, they were required and bound to make payment as per the rates fixed by the Patna Municipal Corporation, whether it be termed a tax, royalty or ground rent charged by the Patna Municipal Corporation for the utilization of the land belonging to the Patna Municipal Corporation, in whatsoever manner it was utilized, unless it be shown that it was an arbitrary and malafide restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 9. With respect to 2nd set of writ petitioners, who are paying as per the agreement of 2005, this Court finds that the reasoning would be equally applicable to them. Once, the Patna Municipal Corporation had advertised the new rates of charging the royalty, the 2nd set of petitioner were at liberty to challenge the advertisement by moving before this Court, with a prayer to quash the advertisement, by contending that the charges were high or that it was in breach of an earlier agreement, or that the Patna Municipal Corporation did not have the powers to charge or tax the petitioners as it was being charged without there being any regulations as required under the Act. They choose to remain silent and continued to pay at rate fixed in the year 2005. They choose to remain silent and continued to pay at rate fixed in the year 2005. Surprisingly, the Patna Municipal Corporation did not raise a protest or take any action till the year 2011 and weakly accepted payment wherever the 2nd set of petitioners choose to make payments. Whatever be the (in)actions of the 2nd set of petitioners and the respondent-Corporation, the 2nd set of petitioners would be liable to pay the Patna Municipal Corporation the amount due to respondents in easy instalments at a duration of four months interval, to be fixed by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The next issue before this Court is whether the demand of penalty on delayed payment is justifiable. 10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation refers to Annexure-B/2 to submit that at the time when the Patna Municipal Corporation settled the rate by an advertisement on 02.11.2007, it was also indicated that the advertising agencies would be charged penalty for non-payment of tax/royalty. This submission on behalf of the Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation is not acceptable because first time the decision was taken on 15.12.2010 and the second time, it appears that a decision was taken in the meeting held on 03.01.2012 (Annexure-B/2). By Annexure-B/2, a decision was taken that those persons who had defaulted in making payment as per the advertisement issued on 02.11.2007 would have to pay two times the amount due from a particular year. It was also decided that those advertising agencies which did not have permission to display their hoardings, would be charged a penalty five times the amount due from particular year; whereas it was resolved and a decision was taken that advertising agencies who had displayed hoardings on their private lands would be charged five times the due amount from a particular year. The charge of interest and the decision of the Patna Municipal Corporation, be it in the meeting held on 15.12.2010 or in the meeting held on 03.01.2012 have been made under Section 431 of the Act. Therefore, it has to be considered whether the Patna Municipal Corporation could have charged the said interest, in default of payment under Section 431 of the Act. Section 431 of the Act reads as follows:- “431. Therefore, it has to be considered whether the Patna Municipal Corporation could have charged the said interest, in default of payment under Section 431 of the Act. Section 431 of the Act reads as follows:- “431. Fine for not paying tax under Chapter XVII.- If any person erects, exhibits, fixes or retains any advertisement referred to in chapter XVII, without paying any tax under that chapter, he shall be punished with fine which – shall not be less than an amount equal to two times of such tax depending upon the gravity of the breach may extend up to an amount equal to five times the amount payable as such tax.” 11. The provisions aforesaid envisages that if a person erects, exhibits, fixes or retains any advertisement referred to in chapter 17 without paying any tax under the said Chapter then he would be liable to a fine which shall not be less than two times of such tax and may extend to five times the amount payable depending on the gravity of the default. Chapter 17 as described above specifically envisages that the license and the rate of tax to be fixed would be chargeable by regulations made under this Act. This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the charge of penalty/fine could not have been made by the Municipality under Section 431 of the Act as the regulations are yet to be framed. If there was a clause in the advertisement issued on 02.11.2007, indicating that defaulters would be fined in a particular manner, then it would be reasonable to hold that the petitioners would be liable to pay a fine for default. This Court, therefore, holds that the Patna Municipal Corporation has been charging tax/royalty from the advertising agencies simply on the basis of an advertisement which according to this Court, cannot be held to be illegal or dehors the Act. Moreso, in view of the fact that none of the petitioners had come to this Court challenging the said enhanced rate, at the time it was enhanced by issuing an advertisement in the year 2007. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners 2nd set cannot claim that the Patna Municipal Corporation cannot charge any tax or royalty or ground rent from advertising agencies and they should be allowed to continue to utilize the space without any payments whatsoever. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners 2nd set cannot claim that the Patna Municipal Corporation cannot charge any tax or royalty or ground rent from advertising agencies and they should be allowed to continue to utilize the space without any payments whatsoever. The present position is that the regulations as envisaged under the Act for charging tax on advertisement have been sent to the State Government for approval or perhaps are in the process of being prepared. It has been submitted by Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No. 1 appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation that the State Government intends to frame exhaustive rules, excluding certain area’s by treating them to be hoarding free zones, for the purpose of maintaining and ensuring that the beauty and grace of old monuments, or places which mark a historical event so that they may not be defaced by hoardings. The Court records its appreciation, for indeed it is essential to keep certain areas free from hoardings to maintain the dignity and beauty of the locality. It is however equally urgent to frame the regulations, so that the petitioners are put out of their misery, and they can take a decision as to whether they can continue uninterruptedly in earning their livelihood. 12. This Court, therefore, quashes the demand notice and penalty imposed on the petitioners as the penalty and interest which has been sprung as a surprise on the petitioners, specifically in the absence of the regulations, and beyond the term of agreements. I may clarify here that by using the term agreement, I am not referring to a written agreement, rather the consensus reached between the parties when they firstly in the year 2005 and later in the year 2007 acted upon the terms and conditions, as set forth by the Patna Municipal Corporation for payment of tax/ royalty/rent for putting up hoardings in the city of Patna. 13. The Courts have on several occasions held that the Public Bodies are bound to carry out promises made by them. In this context, I may refer to the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and another vs. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and another [ AIR 1971 SC 1021 ]. The facts are that The High Court of Bombay had dismissed in limine the petition of the Company. In this context, I may refer to the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and another vs. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and another [ AIR 1971 SC 1021 ]. The facts are that The High Court of Bombay had dismissed in limine the petition of the Company. It was challenged before the Supreme Court that the action of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act 40 of 1965, by which it sought to recover by a resolution issued by the Municipality octroi under the Rules by levying, assessing, collecting, recovering or taking any other step under the rules. On October 30, 1959, the Government of Bombay issued a notification announcing its intention to constitute a Municipality for the Industrial Area, which include the area where the company had its factory etc.. The State Government proclaimed that the industrial area should be excluded. The Municipality made a representation to the Government and there was an agreement that the factories existing in the industrial area would be excluded for a period of seven years from paying the octroi. When the Ulhasnagar Municipality was formed, they passed an resolution imposing octroi duty on goods imported for use, sale and consumption within the Municipal Council limits. The company pleaded that the Ulhasnagar Municipality had “entered into solemn arrangement” not to levy octroi duty for a period of seven years from the date of imposition. In this context, the Court has held at paragraph 11, which reads as follows:- “11. Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promises made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising against an individual out of his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contract by a person who acts upon the promise: when the law requires that a contract enforceable at law against a public body shall be in certain form or be executed in the manner prescribed by statute, the obligation if the contract be not in that form may be enforced against it in appropriate cases in equity. 14. 14. In Union of India v. M/s. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., (1968) 2 SCR 366 = ( AIR 1968 SC 718 ), the Supreme Court held that the Government is not exempt from the equity arising out of the acts done by citizens to their prejudice, relying upon the representations as to its future conduct made by the Government. “ A public body is in our judgment, not exempt from liability to carry out its obligation arising out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to his prejudice.” The same principles would apply in the present cases where there was a representation to act in a particular manner, the Patna Municipal Corporation which is a public body cannot rescind from its stand and demand penalty on royalty in the manner in which they have done. This Court, therefore, does not have any hesitation in holding that until such time that the regulations are framed, the petitioners would be entitled to display their hoardings, subject to the condition that they must pay royalty at the rate fixed by the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2007. Those petitioners, who have not paid as per the advertisement of the year 2007, are directed to do so. The Patna Municipal Corporation will fix instalments for payment of dues. The petitioners should pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Patna Municipal Corporation as the first instalment within a period of three months of this order. 15. Referring to objection and submissions made by the Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation that this Court should not give any interim protection to the petitioners, and that the Patna Municipal Corporation has the power not only to cancel the license, but can also ask the petitioners to remove their hoardings, is not tenable for the reasons discussed above. The Patna Municipal Corporation was not charging royalty/tax before the year 2005, after 2005, they had an arrangement with the petitioners by which the petitioner were paying royalty to the Patna Municipal Corporation, therefore, they cannot rescind from the arrangement until such time as rules/regulations are framed regarding the charge of tax/royalty. CWJC NO. 3949 OF 2012 16. The petitioner is involved in the advertising business as well as maintenance of parks, bus passengers shelters and is registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation for the aforesaid purposes vide Registration No. PMC/17/2008. CWJC NO. 3949 OF 2012 16. The petitioner is involved in the advertising business as well as maintenance of parks, bus passengers shelters and is registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation for the aforesaid purposes vide Registration No. PMC/17/2008. All the hoardings of the petitioner’s company have been displayed on Government sites and the petitioner is maintaining 44 bus passengers shelters, which are on Government land and is also doing miscellaneous works as allotted by the Patna Municipal Corporation from time to time. The first demand received by this petitioner was for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, which he subsequently paid on 03.11.2006. Thereafter, no demands were raised on the rate specified and published on 15.11.2007 vide an advertisement issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioner made the payment suo motu of Rs. 50,000/- against an area of 11901 sq. ft. The petitioner made it clear in his letter as contained in annexure-4 series that he was ready to make payments if the Patna Municipal Corporation had enhanced the rates. 17. For the first time, on 18.07.2009, a meeting was held wherein advertisers were asked to make payment provisionally, subject to the final demand being raised of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter on 27.07.2009, another demand was raised and the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,13,397/- for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010. The petitioner made the adhoc payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 27.07.2009. Later on, he also made a payment of Rs. 1,66,970/- for the year 2010-11. In this manner, the petitioner has stated in various paragraphs that he made payments from time to time with respect to the royalty demanded from the Patna Municipal Corporation. Finally, the petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs. 5,76,000/- with a request to the Patna Municipal Corporation to ensure that the entire area of 7200 sq. ft. was made available to him. The demand notice with which the petitioner is aggrieved was issued on 11.02.2012 asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,49,06,083/- by 27.02.2012, which was later on enhanced by Annexure-15 to a sum of Rs. 2,13,88,857/-, which was to be paid by the petitioner within the aforesaid time. ft. was made available to him. The demand notice with which the petitioner is aggrieved was issued on 11.02.2012 asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,49,06,083/- by 27.02.2012, which was later on enhanced by Annexure-15 to a sum of Rs. 2,13,88,857/-, which was to be paid by the petitioner within the aforesaid time. The petitioner has raised all the issues as answered by this Court above and submits that he has been working for the Patna Municipal Corporation maintaining the bus passengers shelters at several places and the demand made is excessive, arbitrary and without giving any notice to the petitioner so that he could have had any idea regarding the break-up of the said demand. Thus the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures 14 and 15. CWJC NO. 4797 OF 2012 I am dealing with this case individually as this is the only case in which the petitioner was born into the business in the year 2009. In other matters, the petitioners have been carrying out their business from 2007 and in some cases, even prior to 2005. 18. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of an advertisement agency called Mahima Advertising and Marketing which is involved in the advertisement business which includes outdoor media publicity through hoardings, neo-signs and other advertising activities. This petitioner has put up hoardings of various sizes and types in the town of Patna on lands and buildings owned by the private individuals after entering into agreement with them, for which rent as agreed between the parties has been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner is registered/enrolled with the Patna Municipal Corporation having the Enrollment No. PMC/61/09. As apparent, the petitioner came into business in the year 2009 and has been paying taxes to Patna Municipal Corporation for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner tendered the prescribed amount for renewal of the registration of his firm for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, which were returned to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.12.2011 vide Annexure-4 informing the petitioner that the Patna Municipal Corporation does not intend to renew the license as per the decision taken by the Executive Committee. By the same letter, the license of the petitioner was cancelled and the cheque of Rs. 500/- for the year 2011-12 was returned. The petitioner again vide Anexure-5 sent a cheque of Rs. 500/- and Rs. By the same letter, the license of the petitioner was cancelled and the cheque of Rs. 500/- for the year 2011-12 was returned. The petitioner again vide Anexure-5 sent a cheque of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 300/- as registration renewal charges. After the aforesaid cheques were tendered by the petitioner, a demand notice was sent to the petitioner and he was directed to deposit Rs. 7,71,170/- as dues of advertising royalty payable to the Patna Municipal Corporation. Being aggrieved, this writ application has been filed. 19. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he began his business as late as in the year 2009 and was utilizing private lands for putting up his hoardings. The said demand dehors the regulations. Moreover, the demand that has been made is arbitrary, not based on any facts and has no nexus with the conduct of business. This Court has already gave reasons for holding that the Patna Municipal Corporation cannot charge penalty and interest on delayed payments for the reasons and in the manner they have done so. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is willing to continue to make payments promptly at the rate fixed in the advertisement issued in the year 2007. CWJC NO. 4279 OF 2012 The challenge in this writ application is same as in the other writ applications inasmuch as the petitioner challenges the demand dated 11.02.2012, the decision of the committee to charge penalty and cancellation of the license of the petitioner and the enhanced rate as advertised on 15.11.2007. 20. The fact of this case is same except that the petitioner in this case apart from putting up hoardings, also helps the Patna Municipal Corporation to beautify the town and for this the petitioner invests in parks, medians/intersections and in lieu thereof, they were expected to get revenue from the properties so developed. The petitioner completed the beautification work in the year 2008. The petitioner has also developed two triangles at Dhanki More near Ganga Overbridge, roundabouts near CDA building, Kadam Kuan, Patna and triangular medians near exit point of the airport. The petitioner got himself registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2008-09. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never served with any demand notice except for a sum of Rs. The petitioner got himself registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2008-09. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never served with any demand notice except for a sum of Rs. 25,320/- which was to be paid as advertisement tax in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. This amount was paid by the petitioner and has been accepted by the Patna Municipal Corporation on 09.11.2009. The said beautification work was done as decided by a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Patna in which the Patna Municipal Corporation was also a party. The petitioner made a request to the Patna Municipal Corporation to enter into a formal agreement which was not done. In the year 2009, the Patna Municipal Corporation advertised a property which was being maintained by the petitioner for the purposes of maintenance and grant of advertisement rights in lieu of such maintenance. The petitioner came to this Court and filed CWJC No. 15012 of 2009, which apparently is still pending before this Court. Suddenly, on 11.02.2012 along with others, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner which he seeks to quash, apart from the quashing of the decision of imposition of penalty, is the cancellation of license. 21. The argument made in this case with respect to the provisions of Sections 421, 422 and 423 as well as Section 147 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 has been raised by the petitioner and has been answered accordingly. The case of the petitioner, however, comes under a different footing on the ground that as far as the petitioner is concerned, his right to utilize the advertising space and putting up hoardings was in lieu of maintenance of certain properties belonging to the Patna Municipal Corporation. It is, therefore, argued by the petitioner that the Patna Municipal Corporation would not be entitled to demand royalty/tax from them unless it does not do so by a special agreement and this agreement would be effective from the date on which it is issued. 22. The case of this petitioner and the petitioner of CWJC No. 4797 of 2012, are to be considered on a different threshold. 22. The case of this petitioner and the petitioner of CWJC No. 4797 of 2012, are to be considered on a different threshold. Indeed, the Patna Municipal Corporation can charge tax under the Act as per their regulations in the interim period, if the Patna Municipal Corporation intends to charge a royalty from these two sets of writ petitioners they must do so after negotiations as these petitioners cannot be labeled at par with the other writ petitioners of this batch of cases as there is an element of quid pro-quid between parties. Therefore, the demand notice is quashed and the Patna Municipal Corporation will take steps to either enter into a separate agreement to charge royalty from these petitioners from the date on which the Patna Municipal Corporation takes a decision regarding this aspect of the matter. CASES IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE PAYING AS PER THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 02.11.2007 The facts of CWJC Nos. 3963 of 2012, 4277 of 2012 and 4008 of 2012 are more or less similar. The annexures may differ regarding the correspondences between the petitioner and the Patna Municipal Corporation, but all these petitioners have been payment the demands from time to time to the Patna Municipal Corporation and are duly registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation. 23. All the demand letters referred to the meeting held by the Patna Municipal Corporation on 03.01.2012 where the decision was taken to cancel the license of the petitioners and to demand adequate penalty and interest for the delayed payment. The submissions of these writ petitioners are that the demand made is arbitrary, illegal, could not have been made as there is no provision for imposition of penalty and interest in the absence of regulations and in the absence of any such provisions in the advertisement issued to these petitioners from the year 2007. It has also been submitted that at no time were the petitioners given notice so that they could have cared and explained as well as remove the dues of the persons concerned regarding the demand of royalty from these petitioners. The demand, for the first time, in all the cases have already been quashed by this Court with a rider that the petitioners would be liable to make payment according to the 2007 advertisements if they have not paid the royalty due from them. The demand, for the first time, in all the cases have already been quashed by this Court with a rider that the petitioners would be liable to make payment according to the 2007 advertisements if they have not paid the royalty due from them. CASES IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT PAYING AS PER THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 02.11.2007, BUT ARE PAYING AS PER THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING DATED 29.08.2005. 24. In CWJC Nos. 3835 of 2012, 2721 of 2012, 3839 of 2012, 3690 of 2012, 4179 of 2012, 4735 of 2012, 4971 of 2012, 5108 of 2012, 5369 of 2012, 4278 of 2012, 4169 of 2012, 3829 of 2012 and 4281 of 2012, the petitioners seek to quash the demand notice issued to them on 11.02.2012 asking them to pay royalty/tax on advertisement under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. These petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the advertisement issued on 02.11.2007 by which the rate of royalty/tax on advertisement and hoardings have been enhanced. As also the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Patna Municipal Corporation dated 29.09.2007 fixing the rate of penalty for hoardings put up by these petitioners and have prayed for quashing of the minutes of the 19th Ordinary Meeting of the Patna Municipal Corporation dated 15.12.2010, specifically issue no. 18, resolution 551 whereby a decision has been taken for cancellation of the registration of the advertising agencies. The petitioners also seek to quash the demand notice dated 11.02.2012 which not only takes into account the royalty to be paid by these petitioners at the rate fixed in the year 2007, but also imposes penalty for delayed payment. All these petitioners were part of the meeting with the Patna Municipal Corporation by which it was decided that the petitioners would pay a certain amount of royalty for putting up their hoardings, both on the lands of the Patna Municipal Corporation and the lands of the private persons. All these petitioners have been adhereing to the rates as fixed in the meeting held in the year 2005 and have been making payment of the royalty from time to time as demanded by the Patna Municipal Corporation. All these petitioners have been adhereing to the rates as fixed in the meeting held in the year 2005 and have been making payment of the royalty from time to time as demanded by the Patna Municipal Corporation. After 2007, the Patna Municipal Corporation also asked these petitioners to register themselves with the Patna Municipal Corporation so that the Patna Municipal Corporation would have a list of such advertisers who were utilizing the lands of the Patna Municipal Corporation for displaying hoardings. 25. The argument on behalf of these petitioners as mentioned above is that the Patna Municipal Corporation had no right to enhance the rate of royalty without consulting them specifically in view of the fact that the Patna Municipal Corporation had no right to impose a tax under Section 147 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 in absence of any regulations framed in this regard either for charging a tax or for modifying the procedure for grant of license. It has been argued on behalf of these writ petitioners that the Patna Municipal Corporation was not entitled to charge any tax whatsoever as the petitioner were already paying excess tax and tax on advertisement under the Bihar Finance Act. The issuance of the demand notice and the decision to cancel the registration is unwarranted and without any basis. The Patna Municipal Corporation has no right to charge any penalty. It has also been argued that all the petitioners in this batch of cases have been making payment on adhoc basis and as and when demands have been raised by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The Patna Municipal Corporation at no time had insisted for the past six years that the demand ought to be made on an yearly basis, rather the demands were made by the Patna Municipal Corporation from time to time, and as such, the attitude of the Patna Municipal Corporation is unreasonable. It has also been argued by these writ petitioners that the Patna Municipal Corporation has been accepted the rates fixed in the year 2005 and has never before this, raised a demand that the payment should be made at the rate fixed by the advertisement issued in the year 2007. 26. All these aspects of the matter have been dealt with in the earlier portion of this order and it amount to be only repetition if they were to be separately discussed. 26. All these aspects of the matter have been dealt with in the earlier portion of this order and it amount to be only repetition if they were to be separately discussed. CONCLUSION This Court, therefore quashes the order of demand of penalty by the Patna Municipal Corporation in all the cases and directs that the Patna Municipal Corporation should accept the tax/royalty/rent payable by these petitioners in accordance with the 2007 rates fixed by the Patna Municipal Corporation. These writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.