Judgment Petitioner is a registered society, which now runs the affairs of what was once known as Bankipore Convent, where even a school by the name of St. Joseph Convent is run. It is the case of these petitioners that due to internal rearrangement with regard to the running of the various institutions of charity, the society was created sometime in the year 1948-1949, as would be evident from Annexure-1. The memorandum of association and other details are part of Annexure-1. It is their case that they are a charitable organization and have been carrying out that responsibility, including the imparting educations for more than a century or two. They even have exemption from payment of income tax, as would be evident from Annexure-2. However, the issue here is a demand for payment of holding tax, having been made by Patna Municipal Corporation, which according to the petitioner is not permissible for historic reasons as well as the statutory provisions in this regard. 2. The institution has been exempted and enjoys such exemption by a consensus decision taken by the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, relating to Municipal Departments. Communication was made to the Commissioner of Patna Division, by virtue of Annexure- 3, which is dated 25th of October, 1905. The exemption under section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act No. 3 of 1884 on the proposal of the Commissioners of Patna Municipality was granted to the Bankipore Convent and Orphanage for assessment to municipal taxation. Annexure- 3 seems to be a proof of that exemption. 3. Section 98 is para materia now with section 124 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. 4. Another notification after the bifurcation of Bihar from the State of Bengal was issued on 27th of January, 1914. The exemption notification is Annexure-4. 5. After independence and coming of the Constitution, there is yet another notification or atleast a communication made by the Chief Executive Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation, addressed to the Principal of St. Joseph Convent High School that the school is exempted from payment of holding tax. This communication is dated 14th of November, 1962, which is Annexure-5. 6. There is nothing to show from the counter affidavit that there has been a change of position by way of any other notification, issued at the level of the government, contrary to the notifications, contained in Annexure – 3, 4 and 5. This communication is dated 14th of November, 1962, which is Annexure-5. 6. There is nothing to show from the counter affidavit that there has been a change of position by way of any other notification, issued at the level of the government, contrary to the notifications, contained in Annexure – 3, 4 and 5. However, in gross omission or violation of these notifications in vogue, the Patna Municipal Authority, decided to assess the holding for imposition of holding tax, which led to many rounds of litigation. What is significant is an early decision, rendered by the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 1973, Annexure - 9 to the writ application. Here also after taking note of the background to the dispute, the learned Additional District Judge has categorically recorded that before the institution can be assessed for municipal tax, especially holding tax, they are required to make a recommendation to the State Government from taking away the benefit or exemption, which have been in place for over a century now. 7. This Court after having heard counsel for the parties also comes to a conclusion that the exemption, which the institution has been historically enjoying cannot be taken away by the Municipal Authorities at their level. At the most in terms of the provisions or the Act they can surely take a decision and recommend to the State Government to withdraw the exemptions, which the petitioners have been enjoying in all these years, But before it is done, the Municipal Authorities have no power to assess the petitioner for holding tax and impose or create a liability for payment thereof on one pretext or the other. 8. A determined effort put up by the counsel for the Municipality trying to show the distinction between convent as well as the high school, is not appreciable for the fact that in some of the notifications, even the holding number details have been given. The Municipal Authorities have not been able to produce any material to show that these are not the holding number, which may have undergone a change over a period of time or renumbered. 9. In totality, therefore, the impugned order contained in Annexure – 7, dated 28.06.1972, as well as the consequential demand thereafter, contained in Annexure – 11, 12 and 13 stands quashed. Writ application is allowed. 10. 9. In totality, therefore, the impugned order contained in Annexure – 7, dated 28.06.1972, as well as the consequential demand thereafter, contained in Annexure – 11, 12 and 13 stands quashed. Writ application is allowed. 10. It is now left open to the Municipal Authorities to make a recommendation to the State Government to strip the institution of the privilege of exemption, if they so desire or if they find that the institution is no longer a charitable institution, carrying on the objective for which they have been historically exempted by the notifications in question noted above.