JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Shakti Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner i.e. Cantonment Board, Agra (for short ‘petitioner-Board’) has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, namely, Union of India and Northern Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad (for short respondent-railways) to pay service charges amounting to Rs. 7,71,83,287 due from 1982-1983 to 2014-2015 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. According to Sri Shakti Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner-Board, there is statutory liability of the respondent-railways to pay the service charges in view of Section 109 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2006’) and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Union of India, [2010-CLAHN (SC)-3-168]. 4. He submitted that since there is statutory liability pertaining to payment of the service charges, this Court may issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-railways to discharge their statutory liability along with interest. 5. Sri Dubey referred to the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cantonment Board, Varanasi Through Chief Executive Officer v. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Tax No. 1292 of 2011 decided on 3rd October, 2013. He points out that against the said judgment, special leave to appeal has been filed by the Union of India and the respondent-railways before the Apex Court, which has been converted into Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10771 of 2014, but till date, no interim order has been granted. The application for stay has been directed to be notified along with the main matter under the order dated 7th January, 2015. He therefore, submitted before this Court that similar directions may be issued by this Court. 6. After hearing Sri S.D. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this Court required the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain that if there is statutory liability upon the respondent-railways under the Act, 2006, is the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to act as the Executing Court for its recovery or the same has to be affected under the provisions of Act, 2006 itself? 7. 7. Sri S.D. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer the query. However, he referred to the provisions of Sections 89, 98, 101 and 102 of Act, 2006 with the plea that service charges in fact answer the description of tax and therefore, the dues towards service charges can be recovered as arrears of tax by resorting to penal proceedings. In the alternative it is submitted by Sri S.D. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 348 (3) of Act, 2006, bye-laws can be framed for regulation of the collection and recovery of taxes, tolls and fees. However, he could not refer to any such bye-laws having been framed by the Cantonment Board, Agra in the matter of recovery of taxes, tolls, fees etc. payable under the Act, 2006. 8. Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for respondent-Union of India and Railways on the contrary points out that service charges do not answer the description of taxes. For the purpose he relied upon Section 109 of Act, 2006 and he points out that levy of such service charges has been provided for under the Act after the provisions contained in the matter of recovery of taxes, which according to him are referable to the taxes covered by Chapter V of Act, 2006 and nothing beyond it. Therefore, it is his case that provisions pertaining to recovery of taxes under Act, 2006 will not apply. For the purpose, he has relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Supra) itself, wherein it has been provided that recovery of service charges need not be made by resorting to coercive steps (such as stoppage of supplies/services) nor shall resort to revenue recovery proceedings. 9. Sri Vivek Singh, further points out that in absence of any bye-laws having been framed by the Cantonment Board, Agra, only method available for recovery of service charges is by way of civil suit. He also referred to Section 107 of Act, 2006, which provides that if taxes cannot be recovered from any defaulter in the manner provided earlier in the Chapter, the same will be recovered from the defaulter by a suit in any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. He also referred to Section 107 of Act, 2006, which provides that if taxes cannot be recovered from any defaulter in the manner provided earlier in the Chapter, the same will be recovered from the defaulter by a suit in any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. Sri S.D. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder refers to the last part of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Supra), which requires that in case Railways does not abide by the general circulations of the Union of India, the Municipal Corporation can take such action, as is permissible in law. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 12. At the very outset it may be recorded that that the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to act as the executing Court for enforcing the statutory orders normally. The orders passed by the statutory authority must be enforced by the authority issuing the orders in accordance with statutory provisions under which the order has been made at the first instance. 13. In the facts of this case, liability towards service charges upon the railways is not in dispute but its recovery has to be made in accordance with the statutory provisions, which creates the liability, namely, Act, 2006. 14. We are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition as presented before this Court for enforcing the liability against the respondent-railways, without resorting to the statutory provisions as may be applicable, in the matter of recovery of service charges by the Cantonment Board need not be entertained. 15. So far as the issue as to whether service charges answer the description of taxes and therefore, provisions of Section 98, 101 and 102 etc. as provided for under Chapter V of Act, 2006 would be applicable or not is concerned, suffice is to refer to the direction, which has been issued by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Supra). The relevant paragraph whereof reads as follows: “(11). In view of the above, there is no need to consider the appeals on merits. The relevant paragraph whereof reads as follows: “(11). In view of the above, there is no need to consider the appeals on merits. We dispose of appeals and pending applications by recording the following broad agreement between the parties: (i) The Union of India & its departments will pay service charges for the services provided by appellant Municipal Corporations. They will not pay any property tax. The service charges will be paid at 75%, 50%, or 33 1/3% respectively of the property tax levied on property owners, depending upon whether Union of India or its department is utilising the full services, or partial services or nil services. The Union of India represented by its concerned department will enter into agreements/understandings in regard to service charges for each of its properties, with the respective municipal corporation. (ii) The above arrangement is open to modification or periodical revisions by mutual consent. In the event of disagreement on any issue, parties will resort to a dispute resolution mechanism by reference to a three Member Mediation Committee consisting of a representative of the Central Government, a representative of concerned Municipal Corporation and a senior representative (preferably the Secretary in charge of the department of municipal administration) of the State of Gujarat. (iii) If Railways or any other department of Union of India owning a property changes the agreement/understanding unilaterally, or fail to reach a settlement through the Medication Committee in regard to any disputes, or fails to clear the dues, it is open to the concerned Municipal Corporation to initiate such action, as it deems fit in accordance with law by approaching the Jurisdictional Courts/Tribunal for final and interim reliefs. (iv) The municipal corporations shall not resort to coercive steps (such as stoppage of services/services) nor resort to revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of service charges from Union of India or its departments. (v) The services charges payable by Union of India will under no circumstances be more than the service charges paid by State Government for its properties. Whenever exemptions or concessions are granted to the properties belonging to the State Government, the same shall also apply to the properties of Union of India. (v) The services charges payable by Union of India will under no circumstances be more than the service charges paid by State Government for its properties. Whenever exemptions or concessions are granted to the properties belonging to the State Government, the same shall also apply to the properties of Union of India. (vi) If the Railways does not abide by the four general circulars of the Union of India dated 10.5.1954, 29.3.67, 28.5.1976 and 26.8.1986 and the general consensus set out above, it is open to Municipal Corporation to take suitable action as is permissible in law.” 16. In view of the same, the Cantonment Board, Agra cannot resort to revenue recovery proceedings contemplated by Chapter V of the Act, 2006 in the matter of recovery of service charges. 17. Even otherwise, we find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that service charges do not answer the description of taxes within the meaning of Chapter-V of Act, 2006 specifically when it has been placed below the procedure prescribed for recovery of taxes under Chapter-V of Act, 2006 with different nomenclature of service charges. The distinction between the taxes, tolls and fee has also been mentioned in Section 348 of the Act, 2006, where-under a power has been conferred upon the Cantonment Board to frame bye-laws in the matter of regulation of the collection and recovery of taxes, tolls and fees under the Act. 18. Since no bye-laws framed by the Cantonment Board, Agra have been brought to our notice, we cannot express any opinion as to what procedure is provided therein for recovery of service charges. 19. We may only record that if no procedure has been prescribed under the bye-laws then the only course available to the Cantonment Board for recovery of service charges, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to resort to civil suit proceedings. 20. In the totality of the circumstances on record, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the Cantonment Board may resort to such proceedings, as may be permissible under law and to take all such legal action for recovery of service charges against the respondent-railways. 21. 20. In the totality of the circumstances on record, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the Cantonment Board may resort to such proceedings, as may be permissible under law and to take all such legal action for recovery of service charges against the respondent-railways. 21. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Cantonment Board, Varanasi (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we may only record that it proceeds on an agreement entered into between the Cantonment Board and the Railways at Varanasi. The judgment does not deal with the issues, which have been examined by us herein above. It is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. ——————