ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, constitutional validity of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as well as the constitutional validity of the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, are under challenge, being violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, as per the counsel for the petitioners. 2. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners: • Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in W.P.(PIL) No. 764 of 2017,W.P. (PIL) No.697 of 2017, W.P.(PIL) No. 872 of 2017, has submitted that there is no upper limit of tax prescribed for the holding tax, under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011' for the sake of brevity] and hence, the Act, 2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside as it is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 667 . • Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per Article 243-X (a) of the Constitution of India, the authority is a Municipality, who has power to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees, subject to such limits, as may be prescribed by law. Thus there is bound to be an upper limit of the rate of taxes. Such powers to levy and collect the taxes are with the Municipality and not with the Government and hence, Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013 [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2013 for the sake of convenience] enacted by the State is beyond the powers as stated under Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011, Municipality has to publish the Rules. The Rules enacted and amended by the State Government is in violation of Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011, Municipality has to publish the Rules. The Rules enacted and amended by the State Government is in violation of Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that as per Section 152(6) of the Act, 2011, itself prescribes criteria have been given for arriving at annual rental value, whereas, as per the Rules, enacted by the State, as amended from time to time, especially, as per Rule-3 thereof, additional criteria have been prescribed. Thus, the Rules, 2013 is violative of the Act, 2011. Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out, in detail, about the additional criteria, mentioned in the self-assessment form, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the writ petition bearing W.P. (PIL) No.697 of 2017, like usage of the property, definition of road etc. and it is submitted that these criteria have never been mentioned in the Act, 2011, whereas, the Rules, 2013 have added these criteria and hence, the Rules, 2013 is violative of the Act, 2011. • Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in: On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that subordinate legislation can always be challenged, when the same is violative of the Constitution of India and/ or if it is violative of the principal Act. • It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, were published on 28.09.2016 and it is made effective from 01.04.2016. Said Rules have been applicable with retrospective effect. There are no such powers vested with the State to enact such type of Rules and make them effective with retrospective effect. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 152(7) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011 are also unconstitutional, which authorize the Government to prescribe the rate of tax without any upper limit and thus, the same is violative of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India, because the said Article authorizes only the Municipality to prescribe the rate of tax. • Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out Articles 243-P, 243-R, 243-Q and 243-X of the Constitution of India to be read with various provisions of the Act, 2011 from Section 151 onwards, including 262, 263, 268 and 269 as well as Section 590 of the Act, 2011. • Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out the extra classification of tenant. Annual rental value can be made depending upon the nature of the holding of the property and hence also, the Rules are violative of the Act, 2011. • Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the previous publication of the Rules is a must and in the facts of the present case, there is no previous publication of the Rules as required under Section 590 of the Act, 2011 and Section 26 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, for which, he has relied upon the decision, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 696 . • Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate, while arguing W.P.(C) No. 939 of 2017, has submitted that political democracy is converted into social democracy i.e. people's participation. Senior Counsel has also pointed out Articles 243-P, 243-E, 243-Q, 243-R, and 243-W of the Constitution of India and it is further submitted by the Senior Counsel that powers of Municipality have been usurped by the State Government. Senior Counsel has also relied upon Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the Senior Advocate that there is no power vested with the State Government to levy, assess and collect the tax. Senior Advocate has also developed some concepts like anti-social democracy, decentralization of power etc. • Senior Advocate, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, while arguing W.P.(C) No. 1264 of 2017, has pointed out 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, especially Part-IX-A thereof and the Articles 243-P, 243-R, 243-Q and 243-X of the Constitution of India to be read with several provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and has submitted that there is no State Commission, constituted under Section 268 of the Act, 2011. State Municipal Regulatory Commission Rules, enacted by the State, cannot be made functional. Senior Advocate, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, has also pointed out this Court to Section 268(1) (a) as well as Section 268(1)(h) of the Act, 2011. It is submitted by Mr. State Municipal Regulatory Commission Rules, enacted by the State, cannot be made functional. Senior Advocate, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, has also pointed out this Court to Section 268(1) (a) as well as Section 268(1)(h) of the Act, 2011. It is submitted by Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Senior Advocate, that as per Section 268(2) of the Act, 2011, powers are given to the State Commission; similarly, as per Section 269 of the Act, 2011, powers are given to the State Municipal Advisory Committee, which are not constituted at all. Senior Counsel has also pointed out that as per Section 153 of the Act, 2011, Jharkhand Property Tax Board has not been constituted. Thus, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Senior Counsel, has referred to Sections 151 & 153 to be read with Sections 262, 268, 269 of the Act, 2011 and has submitted that Rules, which are amended, from time to time, by the State, cannot be made operative. • Mr. M.K. Habib, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1349 of 2017, has adopted the arguments canvassed by earlier counsels and has submitted that the Act, 2011 is violative of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India and the Rules, 2013 is violative of Constitution of India as well as violative of the Act, 2011. (a) (1972) 1 SCC 696 ; (b) (1999) 8 SCC 667 , which was followed in (2016) 1 SCC 170 ; (c) (2005) 12 SCC 77; (d) (2015) 8 SCC 1 ; and (e) (2016) 7 SCC 703 . 3. Arguments canvassed by the State of Jharkhand: • Counsel for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that neither the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 nor the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, in view of Article 265 of the Constitution of India to be read with Entry-49, List-II (State List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the Constitution of India, much less Article 243-X thereof. • It is submitted by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand that as per Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, State has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact the Rules and the Municipalities have also power and jurisdiction to make Rules under Section 592 of the Act, 2011, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2011 and which are in fact consistent with the Rules, enacted by the State Government. • It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that as per Section 152 (7) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011, State has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact the Rules, 2013 and to amend the Rules from time to time, especially, for the purpose of holding tax, as defined under Section 2(54) of the Act, 2011. • It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that holding tax is nothing, but, certain percentage of the annual rental value or annual letting value. Annual letting value is nothing but a notional rent. This rent will be a standard rent and will now be fixed in the State of Jharkhand by the Rent Controller under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. • It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that what is prescribed under the Rules by the State is 2% of the annual letting value or the annual rental value of the property as a holding tax. This is a minimum rate of tax, which can be altered by the Municipalities with the prior approval of the State Government. By this mechanism, no provision of the Constitution of India is violated by the State of Jharkhand, much less, Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. • Counsel for the respondents-State has further submitted that the Rules, 2013 can still be made operativ, even in absence of the constitution of the State Commission, which is prescribed under Section 262(d) to be read with Section 268 of the Act, 2011. Similarly, the provisions of the Rules, 2013 can always be made operative, even in absence of State Municipal Advisory Committee, as envisaged under Section 269 of the Act, 2011 because the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, prescribe only 2% of the annual letting value as holding tax. This rate can be altered by the Municipality after prior permission of the State Government. This rate can be altered by the Municipality after prior permission of the State Government. The word “holding tax” is not within the power of the State Commission under Section 268 of the Act, 2011. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that by virtue of the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, criteria to arrive at a correct assessment of annual letting value or annual rental value have never been altered nor have been added. It ought to be kept in mind that criteria have been given under subsection (6) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011. Rules have given the guidance how to arrive at annual letting value of any property, which is situated on road side or if it has already fetched higher rental value or has already been given on rent and is not self-occupied property. Thus, if any rent is already paid by any tenant, it will be easier for the Rent Controller to arrive at annual letting value of the property. Thus, mentioning of the criteria in the Rules about the rented property or about mentioning of the definition of the road, makes neither the Rules, 2013 violative of the Act, 2011 nor the Constitution of India. • Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Rules, 2013 have already been published in the Official Gazette. Much has been argued on the previous publication. This contention has been replied by the counsel for the respondents-State to the effect that the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, prescribe only minimum rate of tax at the rate of 2% of annual letting value. Municipality is a self-sufficient and self-dependant body. Imposition of the Property Act is must for the Municipality. There cannot be any Municipality, which can impose the Property Tax, for which, minimum 2% has been prescribed of the annual letting value of the property as a holding tax. This bare minimum rate of tax can be enhanced by the Municipalities with the prior permission of the State Government under sub-section (8) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011. Imposition of 2% holding tax of annual letting value of the property cannot be said to be unreasonably excessive nor it can be said to be confiscatory in nature. If there is any further enhancement, question of publication can be decided by this Court. Imposition of 2% holding tax of annual letting value of the property cannot be said to be unreasonably excessive nor it can be said to be confiscatory in nature. If there is any further enhancement, question of publication can be decided by this Court. Even otherwise, Rules, 2013 have already been published in the Official Gazette and if there is any grievance of an individual regarding the holding tax, remedy is available under the law and the same can be decided by the competent trial court, looking to the individual nature of the property and the quantum of assessment of the annual letting value. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that on a probable misuse of the provisions of the Act or Rules neither the Act nor the Rules can be held as unconstitutional. Such type of violation of the Act and the Rules can be challenged by the individuals in their separate cases in the trial court. Future probability of the misuse of the Act or the Rules cannot be the ground for declaring them as unconstitutional. R E A S O N S 4. Having heard counsel for both the sides, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, judicial pronouncements, provisions of the Constitution of India, provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and the provisions of the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, it appears that both, the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as well as the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013 are constitutionally valid and lawful mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) As per Article 265 to be read with Article 243 and 243-X to be read with Entry 5 and 49 of List-II (State List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, State has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact the law for the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and the local Government bodies, especially, for tax on lands and buildings. Entry 5 and Entry 49 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India read as under: “5. Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. 49. Entry 5 and Entry 49 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India read as under: “5. Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. 49. Taxes on lands and buildings.” Article 243 and Article 243-X of the Constitution of India read as under: “243. Definitions.-In this part, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) “district” means a district in a State; (b) “Gram Sabha” means a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level; (c) “intermediate level” means a level between the village and district levels specified by the Governor of a State by Public notification to be intermediate level for the purposes of this part; (d)“Panchayat” means an institution (by whatever name called) of self-government constituted under Article 243-B, for the rural areas; (e) “Panchayat area” means the territorial area of a Panchayat; (f) “population” means the population as ascertained at the last proceeding census of which the relevant figures have been published; (g) “village” means a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village for the purpose of this Part and includes a group of villages so specified. 243X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the Municipalities.-The Legislature of a State may, by law,- (a) authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits; (b) assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits; (c) provide for making such grants-in-aid to the Municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the State; and (d) provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys received, respectively, by or on behalf of the Municipalities and also for the withdrawal of such moneys therefrom, as may be specified in the law.” (ii) In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of India, Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 has been enacted. The objects and reasons for enactment of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 read as under: “Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Municipal Governments in the State of Jharkhand in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of India as amended by the Constitution (Seventy fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, based on the principles of participation in, and decentralization, autonomy and accountability of, urban self-government at various levels, to introduce reforms in financial management and accounting systems, internal resource generation capacity and organizational design of municipalities, to ensure professionalisation of the municipal personnel, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Jharkhand in the Sixty-one year of the Republic of India.....” (iii) As per Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, Rule making power is vested with the State Government. For ready reference, Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 reads as under: “590. Power to make rules.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) Any rule made under this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (3) Every rule made under this Act shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of ten days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the successive sessions aforesaid, the State Legislature agrees in making any modification in the rules or the State Legislature agrees that the rules should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however that such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done or omitted to be done under that rule.” (iv) In exercise of powers under Section 590 of the Act, 2011 to be read with other provisions of the Act, 2011, especially, Section 152(3) thereof, the State of Jharkhand has enacted Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013. By virtue of these Rules, the State of Jharkhand has enacted, in detail, the provisions for imposition, assessment and levy of the taxes for municipal corporations or municipalities or the local Government bodies. Here, we are concerned with the holding tax as defined under Section 2(54) of the Act, 2011. For ready reference, Section 2(54) of the Act, 2011 reads as under: “2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “Ad hoc Committee”.............................................. (2).................................................................................. …...................................................................................... …..................................................................................... (54) “Holding” means land held under one title or agreement and surrounded by one set of boundaries: Provided that, where two or more adjoining holdings held by the same owner form part and parcel of the site or premises of an apartment and a dwelling house, manufactory, warehouse or place of trade or business, such holdings shall be deemed to be one holding for the purposes of this Act: Explanation-Holdings separated by a road or other means of communication shall be deemed adjoining within the meaning of this clause: Provided further that where any building is capable of being enjoyed separately in parts, or where portions of such building are owned separately by different persons, or where the building comprises self contained and independent units, each of such parts, portions or units shall, on application by the owners, be deemed, to be a separate holding;” (Emphasis supplied) (v) By virtue of the aforesaid constitutional provisions, especially, Article 243-X to be read with Entries of the 7th Schedule, State Government has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013. It further appears from the constitutional provisions that for the local bodies like municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats, State Government can enact law, especially, for imposing tax upon the property. Here, in the State of Jharkhand, the said enactment is Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013. (vi) Much has been argued on Section 152(7) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011 to be violative of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. It ought to be kept in mind that law as a whole should be interpreted. Constitutional validity of the law as a whole is to be checked and thereafter any sub-section, as a whole. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. It ought to be kept in mind that law as a whole should be interpreted. Constitutional validity of the law as a whole is to be checked and thereafter any sub-section, as a whole. The State Government has all power, jurisdiction and authority, as stated hereinabove, to enact the law for the local governments i.e. municipal corporations, municipalities and the panchayats for imposition, assessment and levy of the property tax. (vii) Looking to the over all provisions of the Act, 2011, it appears that the same is not violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Looking to Article 243-X of the Constitution of India, it appears that this Article empowers the State Legislature to authorize a municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits. By virtue of this Article, State Legislature is also empowered to assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties, tolls and fees, levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits. (viii) Much has been argued out by the counsels for all the petitioners that imposition, assessment and levy of the property tax or holding tax is a monopoly of the municipal corporations and municipalities and State has no power, jurisdiction and authority to give any guidance to the municipal corporations or municipalities. This contention is devoid of any merit. Article 243 of the Constitution of India never creates any monopoly in favour of the municipal corporation nor in favour of the municipalities. Article 243X of the Constitution of India mere empowers the State Legislature that they can authorize the municipalities to levy, collect and appropriate taxes or duties or tolls or fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits, as may be prescribed by the State Government. Thus, State Legislature has all power, jurisdiction and authority to give proper guidance to the municipal corporations and municipalities by enacting an Act or the Rules. Article 243-X of the Constitution of India defines “Powers of the State”. Whenever the Constitution defines “Power”, there is no corresponding duty vested in anybody. When there is no corresponding duty, there cannot be any right vested with anybody. Article 243-X of the Constitution of India defines “Powers of the State”. Whenever the Constitution defines “Power”, there is no corresponding duty vested in anybody. When there is no corresponding duty, there cannot be any right vested with anybody. When there is no right vested in any one, there is no violation of the public duty whatsoever arises and when there is no violation of the public duty of the State, no writ of mandamus can ever be issued, while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, power has no corresponding duty, meaning thereby to, the Constitution empowers the State Legislature that State can authorize the municipalities to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees, in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits. The words used in Article 243 of the Constitution of India are “in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits”. Meaning of the aforesaid words further empowers the State Government to enact the Act and the Rules also, especially, looking to the Entry 5 and Entry 49 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India for enactment of law for imposition, levy and collection of the property tax and/ or holding tax. Thus, as per Article 243-X of the Constitution of India, there in no independent power vested with the municipal corporations nor with the municipalities nor there is any monopoly in their favour that only they can impose and assess the property tax or holding tax. By virtue of the words-“in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits”, used in Article 243 of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has all power, jurisdiction and authority to prescribe the procedures and the limits of the imposition of the holding tax. (ix) Much has also been argued out by counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha that “subject to such limits”,the words used in Article 243-X(a) thereof prescribe that there is bound to be upper limit given by the Act or the Rules of the percentage of the holding tax. This contention is devoid of any merit. Much has been argued that there is bound to be maximum limit of the property tax, which has been prescribed under the Act, 2011 or under the Rules, 2013. This contention is devoid of any merit. Much has been argued that there is bound to be maximum limit of the property tax, which has been prescribed under the Act, 2011 or under the Rules, 2013. This argument has no legs to stand, mainly for the reason that the words -“subject to such limits” can also fix the minimum rate of tax. In the facts of the present case, it is 2% of the annual letting value, so far as holding tax is concerned. By no stretch of imagination, this 2% tax of the total value of annual letting value of any property can be said to be confiscatory in nature nor it can be labelled as unreasonably excessive. It ought to be kept in mind that sometimes while assessing or while levying some taxes by the municipalities, there may be some error committed by them. Such type of erroneous fixing of annual letting value may be challenged and can be quashed by competent trial court,but, it does not mean that tax liability will be zero. To avoid such type of situations, which can bring imposition of taxes at level zero, the State of Jharkhand has all power, jurisdiction and authority to prescribe minimum holding tax, so that the municipality can work and can perform its statutory duties, with the help of collection of taxes at this minimum rate of holding tax. Municipalities are not error proof authorities. Even assessment of the municipalities is quashed, but, still the minimum liability will remain in existence for holders of properties, so that the municipalities can work and can perform their statutory duties and therefore, Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 to be read with Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013 are in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and more particularly, in consonance with Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. (x) Much has been argued out by the counsels for the petitioners that the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, violates the provisions of the Act, 2011. We are also not accepting this contention. The enactments of the Rules, 2013 and the amendments, from time to time therein, are absolutely in consonance with provisions of the Constitution of India as well as in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2011. We are also not accepting this contention. The enactments of the Rules, 2013 and the amendments, from time to time therein, are absolutely in consonance with provisions of the Constitution of India as well as in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2011. (xi) Section 590 of the Act, 2011 empowers the State to enact the Rules, which has been quoted hereinabove. In exercise of the power conferred vide Section 590 of the Act 2011 to be read with Section 152(3) thereof, the Rules 2013 have been enacted by the State Government. In these petitions, we are concerned with holding tax only, as argued out by the counsels for the petitioners. Here, the petitioners are not concerned with any other type of taxes. Looking to the constitutional provisions, as stated hereinabove, to be read with entires made in the State List, to be read with Section 590 of the Act, 2011, to be read with Section 152(3) thereof, the State Legislature has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact the Rules, 2013, which prescribe, in detail, the procedure for imposition, assessment,levy etc. of the holding tax. Holding tax has been defined under Section 2(54) of the Act, 2011, which has been quoted hereinabove. For determination of the holding tax, there should be determination of the annual letting value, which is known as ''annual rental value” in the State of Jharkhand, as defined under Section 2(5) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. For ready reference, Section 2(5) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, reads as under :- “Annual Rental Value” of a holding means the gross annual rental at which a holding may reasonably be expected to be let out.” (xii) Thus, before finalization of holding tax, one has to arrive at the annual rental value or the annual letting value, of the property in question. If the property is self occupied property, there will be notional rent of the property. There are various methods and mechanism to arrive at the notional letting value of the property under the various Act prevailing in India, enacted by the State or by the Central Government and by virtue of several judgments, varieties of methods are available to arrive at annual letting value of the property. There are various methods and mechanism to arrive at the notional letting value of the property under the various Act prevailing in India, enacted by the State or by the Central Government and by virtue of several judgments, varieties of methods are available to arrive at annual letting value of the property. Sometimes, it can be few percentage of the value thereof; sometimes, value of the property depends upon the value prescribed in “register of minimum value” and sometimes, it also depends on “circle rate”. Different terminology is being used in our country. This guidance, to arrive at annual letting value, has been given under the Rules 2013 by the State Legislature. After arriving at annual letting value, certain percentage of this value will be a holding tax. This percentage has been fixed as minimum percentage i.e 2% by the Rules 2013. Much has been argued out by the counsels for the petitioners that this rate can be prescribed, only by some Commission or Committee under the Act, 2011. We are not in agreement with this contention. The State Government has all power, jurisdiction and authority to prescribe minimum rate of tax. In the facts of the present case, 2% of the annual letting value of the property, is holding tax. This prescription of minimum tax is must, because it happens sometimes that municipalities commit error in imposing and levying holding tax. In such type of eventuality, even by nicest arguments, assessment of the holding tax cannot be zero, if the minimum rate of tax is prescribed under the Rule 2013, Consequent thereto, the municipality can work i.e. it can pay the salaries, it can carry out, the works for the public welfare, as there are public duties imposed by the Act, 2011 etc. Had there been no minimum rate of tax prescribed under the Rules,2013, eventuality may arise that for a particular year or years, by smallest error of the municipality, the imposition of the levy of the tax may be zero. To avoid such situation, wisely and in due compliance of the constitutional mandates, the State has enacted the Rules 2013, which prescribe minimum rate of holding tax. Rule-7 of the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, amended from time to time, reads as under: “Rule 7. To avoid such situation, wisely and in due compliance of the constitutional mandates, the State has enacted the Rules 2013, which prescribe minimum rate of holding tax. Rule-7 of the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, amended from time to time, reads as under: “Rule 7. Rate of Holding Tax-In the light of section 152(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, the holding tax shall be assessed on the basis of 2% of the Annual Rental Value.” (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid provision is to be read with Section 152(7) and 152(8) of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. For ready reference, Section 152(7) and 152(8) read as under : “152. Power to Levy Taxes. (1) ….................................................................................. (2) …................................................................................. …...................................................................................... …...................................................................................... (7) The following taxes shall be assessed on the basis of Annual Rental Value at such rates as prescribed by the Government from time to time:- (i) Holding Tax (ii) Water Tax (iii) Latrine Tax (iv)Tax on any other item included in Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India on such rate as prescribed. (8) The municipality shall revise the rate of tax on Annual Rental Value once in five years or earlier with the prior approval of the State Government.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus the municipality has also the power, jurisdiction and authority, to revise the rate of tax; meaning thereby to, from the very beginning some rates can be prescribed, so that the municipality can revise the same. Rule-7 of the Rules-2013 prescribes minimum rate of holding tax and if the municipality is revising the same, in exercise of power under Section 152(8) of Act, 2011, it is always permissible, subject to the limitations mentioned in sub-section(8) of Section 152. Looking to the Section 152(8) of the Act, 2011 also, the State Government has all control upon the rate of tax. In any absurd situation or arbitrariness, on the part of the municipality, the State has a power of denial or the State has a power not to grant approval or the State has a power not to ratify the revision in the rate of Tax. Thus, ultimately powers are vested with the State Government, which is absolutely in consonance with 243-X of the Constitution of India because by this Article, the State Legislature is empowered to authorize the municipality for collection of the holding tax or property tax. Thus, ultimately powers are vested with the State Government, which is absolutely in consonance with 243-X of the Constitution of India because by this Article, the State Legislature is empowered to authorize the municipality for collection of the holding tax or property tax. Thus neither Sections 152(7) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011 nor the Rules, 2013 are violative of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, they are absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. (xiii) Much has been argued out by the counsels for the petitioners that under Section 590 of Act, 2011, the State may, by notification and subject to conditions of previous publication, make the rules. “Previous publication” has been argued out at length. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 696 has been argued out at length. This contention is also not helpful to the petitioners, mainly for the reasons that, Rules enactment power, vested with the State, is by virtue of the Act, 2011.There are various provisions under the Act, 2011 which empower the State to enact the Rules. There are provisions like Section 153(4) of the Act, 2011 also, which empower the State, which may, by notification, make the Rules for carrying out the purposes of that Section. Moreover, looking to Section 152(3) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011, over all control is with the State Government for levy, assessment and collection of the tax under the Act, 2011. Basically, power of the State is conferred by the Constitution of India, especially under Article 243-X to be read with Entry-5 and Entry-49 of List-II(State List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. These matters are only for the holding tax. As stated hereinabove, only 2% of the annual letting value has been prescribed by the Rules, 2013 as a holding tax. This is a minimum rate of tax as per Rule-7 thereof. This rate can be revised by Municipality under sub-section (8) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, but, the approval of the State is must. Such revision can be suggested by the municipality, normally once in five years and exceptionally, even earlier also. Such type of powers are vested with the municipality. This rate can be revised by Municipality under sub-section (8) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, but, the approval of the State is must. Such revision can be suggested by the municipality, normally once in five years and exceptionally, even earlier also. Such type of powers are vested with the municipality. For any so-called error in assessment of the holding tax, it cannot lead to zero assessment; otherwise, municipality can not work in certain eventualities; it cannot render statutory or constitutional obligations. Every holder of the property is bound to make payment of holding tax, which is prescribed by the State Government. There is no need of any previous publication of the Rules, when the minimum rate of tax is prescribed. It is a bounden duty of the holder of the property, to pay, the minimum holding tax to their local government. If the rates are to be enhanced, as per sub-section(8) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, from that of the minimum prescription of holding tax, in such eventualities, the previous publication is required, otherwise not. This interpretation is purposeful interpretation so as to avoid zero tax liability of the holder of the property. For bare minimum payment of tax, previous publication is not required. (xiv) Much has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that various criteria have been mentioned under sub-section(6) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011 for arriving at correct annual rental value and by virtue of the Rule, 2013, one or two criteria have been added which is not permissible. This contention is also not accepted by this Court, mainly for the reason that to arrive at annual rental value or annual letting value, what is prescribed under sub-section(6) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, is nothing, but, a guidance provided to the assessing authority. To arrive at annual letting value of any property, especially, when it is self-occupied, it is a very complex phenomena. Annual letting value will be guided by several factors. List of such factors, given under sub-section(6) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, is not exhaustive. List of the factors to be kept in mind by the assessing authorities. It is a inclusive list of the factors or the circumstances, whereby, annual letting value can be assessed by the assessing officer. List of such factors, given under sub-section(6) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011, is not exhaustive. List of the factors to be kept in mind by the assessing authorities. It is a inclusive list of the factors or the circumstances, whereby, annual letting value can be assessed by the assessing officer. Criteria, are mentioned in the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, which also prescribe that assessing authority shall keep in mind the road or the width of the road or whether the premises is actually rented premises or not. Such type of criteria can always be prescribed, which are important criteria, for arriving at annual letting value of the property, in question. While mentioning all these criteria in the Rules, 2013. It cannot be said that extraneous considerations will be considered by the assessing authorities. On the contrary, these are major factors to arrive at correct annual letting value. Annul letting value also depends upon the road in front of which the property is situated. In thin and narrow lane, if any property is situated and another property of the same area or measurement is situated, on a considerably wider road, on a considerably busy road of the town, absolutely, another rent, can be fetched. Such type of considerations, to be kept in mind, while arriving at annual letting value, cannot be said to be arbitrary considerations. (xv) Looking to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, reasons and the constitutional provisions, State of Jharkhand has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. Section 152(7) and 152(8) are also constitutionally valid. Moreover, looking to Article 243-X to be read with Entry-5 and Entry-49, List-II (State List) of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Government has all power and authority to prescribe minimum rate of holding tax and the same can be varied or revised by the municipalities under sub-section(8) of Section 152 of the Act, 2011. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that only municipality can prescribe the rates much time has been consumed during course of argument that State has no power to prescribe the rate of tax. We are not in agreement with this contention. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that only municipality can prescribe the rates much time has been consumed during course of argument that State has no power to prescribe the rate of tax. We are not in agreement with this contention. Municipalities have power to revise the rate of tax; meaning thereby, State can always prescribe the minimum rate of holding tax so as to avoid “zero tax” situation, as stated hereinabove in detail. Hence, judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are of no help to them. There is a need of prescribing maximum rate of tax which is a major argument canvassed by the counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha. We are not accepting this argument. Maximum rate of tax depends upon the situations, prevailing within local self Government, which also depends upon need of municipality. It also depends upon evasion of the tax. More the evasion of the tax, more will be the rate of tax and hence, there is no need for any statute to prescribe maximum rate of tax. Neither under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 nor under the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, there is any legal obligation on the part of the State to prescribe the maximum rate of tax. (xvi) Assesses have all right to challenge the assessment of the tax before the competent trial court, but, in any eventualities, they will have no option, but to pay, the holding tax at the rate of 2% as prescribed under the Rule, 2013, as amended from time to time. It is now high time in this country to prescribe minimum rate of tax instead of maximum rate of tax, because by any nicest argument, rate of holding tax should never be zero as per the Rule, 2013, which is also a constitutional one and nothing of this methodology, of prescribing, minimum rate of tax, is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India because municipalities have to render several services to the public at large and there are several constitutional duties and statutory duties to be performed by them Salaries are to be paid; services are to be purchased by the municipalities. This cannot be done without imposing minimum rate of tax. This cannot be done without imposing minimum rate of tax. (xvii) It has also been canvassed by the counsels for the petitioners that the Rules were published on 28.09.2016, whereas, it is made effective from 01.04.2016. Such type of imposition of tax with the aforesaid retrospectivity is always permissible in the eyes of law. Tax imposing authority has all power, jurisdiction and authority to impose tax with the retrospective effect, especially, looking to the facts of the present case, amended Rules were published on 28.09.2016 and the same were made effective from 01.04.2016. If we look closely like zoom lens camera, it will appear that arguments canvassed by the counsels for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners because previously minimum rate of tax was 2.5% of the total annual letting value of the property for the holding tax and now, by virtue of amendment, it has been prescribed as 2%. Thus rate of tax has been reduced. If the petitioners are over enthusiastic, they can pay holding tax at the rate of 2.5% of the annual letting value, but, it does not mean that amendment carried out by the State is unconstitutional. More charitable persons are always preferred for payment of the taxes. 5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, reported in (1964) 1 SCR 897 : AIR 1963 SC 1667 : (1963) 50 ITR 171 , reads as under: “15. In M/s J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1534 the argument that the character of the sales tax as enacted by the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was radically altered in its retrospective operation, was likewise rejected. The same argument in respect of an excise tax raised before this Court in the case of Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. Union of India was for similar reasons rejected. The same argument in respect of an excise tax raised before this Court in the case of Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. Union of India was for similar reasons rejected. The position, therefore, appears to be well settled that if in its essential features a taxing statute is within the legislative competence of the legislature which passed it by reference to the relevant entry in the List, its character is not necessarily changed merely by its retrospective operation so as to make the said retrospective operation outside the legislative competence of the said legislature, and so, we must hold that the challenge to the validity of the retrospective operation of the Act on the ground that the provision in that behalf is beyond the legislative competence of the Bihar Legislature, must be rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Entertainment Tax Officer v. Ambae Picture Palace, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 209 , reads as under: “13. If the Parliament or the State Legislatures have competence to legislate, they can do so prospectively as well as retrospectively and taxation laws are no exception to this power. (Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra). Again in Krishnamurthi & Co. v. State of Madras this Court held that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate legislatures to enact laws in respect of topics covered by the several entries in the three lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Star India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 203 , reads as under: “7. In any event, it is clear from the language of the validation clause, as quoted by us earlier, that the liability was extended not by way of clarification but by way of amendment to the Finance Act with retrospective effect. It is well established that while it is permissible for the legislature to retrospectively legislate, such retrospectivity is normally not permissible to create an offence retrospectively. There were clearly judgments, decrees or orders of courts and tribunals or other authorities, which were required to be neutralised by the validation clause. We can only assume that the judgments, decrees or orders, etc. There were clearly judgments, decrees or orders of courts and tribunals or other authorities, which were required to be neutralised by the validation clause. We can only assume that the judgments, decrees or orders, etc. had, in fact, held that persons situate like the appellants were not liable as service providers. This is also clear from the Explanation to the validation section which says that no act or acts on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would have been so punishable if the section had not come into force.” (Emphasis Supplied) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Assn., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 669 , reads as under: “20. Before concluding, we have serious objections to the manner in which direction has been given by the Division Bench of the High Court to the legislature. In this connection, we quote the last paragraph of the impugned judgment, which is as follows: “… Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(8-aa) of the Act are declared unconstitutional and struck down…. The State shall be free to suitably amend Section 3(1) to provide for levy of house tax by adopting a uniform criteria for determination of annual value of similarly situated properties. The State shall also be free to amend Section 3(1) and lay down a uniform criteria for determination of annual value of properties occupied by the tenants as well as the owners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sachchidanand Kishore Prasad Sinha case and observations made in this order. It is, however, made clear that any such enactment shall not affect the assessments made prior to the amendment of Section 3 by Punjab Act 11 of 1994 and the old cases, if any pending shall be decided in accordance with the unamended provision….” (Emphasis Supplied) In the above judgment, the High Court directs the State Legislature to amend the law relating to determination of annual value by clarifying that any such amendment shall not be retrospective. We have serious reservations regarding such a direction. It is not open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the matter of taxation directing it not to amend the law retrospectively. Such a direction is unsustainable, particularly in a taxing statute. We have serious reservations regarding such a direction. It is not open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the matter of taxation directing it not to amend the law retrospectively. Such a direction is unsustainable, particularly in a taxing statute. It is always open to the State Legislature, particularly in tax matters, to enact validation laws which apply retrospectively. The High Court cannot take away the power of the State Legislature to amend the tax law retrospectively. The basis of the law can always be altered retrospectively.” 6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, State Legislature has all power, jurisdiction and authority to enact Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and no provision thereof, especially, Section152(7) and 152(8) are violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the Act, 2011 is absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. State Legislature has also power to enact the Rules, prescribing the imposition, levy and collection of the holding tax. Here, we are concerned with holding tax only, because in these matters arguments have been advanced only for holding tax and for nothing else. Rules are not travelling beyond the provisions of the Constitution of India nor the provisions of Rules are travelling beyond the provisions of the Act, 2011. On the contrary, the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, are absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and in consonance with the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. 7. All the writ petitions being devoid of merit, are, hereby, dismissed. 8. In individual assessment of the property tax or the holding tax, they have remedies available under the Act to challenge the assessment. 9. In view of the final order passed in these writ petitions, both the interlocutory applications (I.A. No. 2057 of 2017 and I.A. No. 6179 of 2017) also stand dismissed.