IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8343 of 1993 THE BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, NEAR DAK BUNGLOW, BAILEY ROAD, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA. ……………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, SASARAM (ROHTAS), THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, SASARAM MUNICIPAL BOARD, SASARAM, (ROHTAS). 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SASARAM MUNICIPAL BOARD, SASARAM (ROHTAS). ……………… RESPONDENTS. --------------- For the Petitioner :- M/s. Naresh Dixit, Kalpana, Advocates. For the Respondents :- Mr. R. C. Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate. 13 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Sasaram Municipal Board and its officials who are the respondents. This writ petition was admitted on 02.01.1997 on the basis of a submission that the matter was similar to that in CWJC No. 1119 of 1991 and interim order was also passed which required the petitioner to continue to deposit the balance of tax demand which had remain unpaid. It was noticed that out of Rs.3,28,125/- (rupees three lacs twenty eight thousand one hundred twenty five only) vide demand draft and cheque as mentioned in Annexure – 6, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lac fifty thousand) had already been deposited by the petitioner. The petition was directed to go on depositing the annual rental at the admitted rate during the disposal of the writ application failing which the writ application was to stand 2 automatically dismissed. Due to some reasons not clear from the records, CWJC No. 1119 of 1991 was listed separately and the same was allowed on 18th December, 1998. That judgment and order passed by a Division Bench has been made available by the office. It shows that in that case the prayer was for quashing of an order of November, 1990 passed by Certificate Officer, Gaya in Certificate Case No. 133 of 1990-1991 whereby objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 lodged by the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation had been rejected. In the present case although the petitioner is the same Corporation, the matter in controversy is quite different. The petitioner has, in substance, challenged the assessment of municipal tax but the prayer made in the present writ application is only for quashing of two demand notices contained in Annexures 4 & 6. From the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that earlier the godowns of the petitioner Corporation situated within Sasaram Municipal Board belonged to Central Warehousing Corporation which had been litigating against the municipal tax assessed by the respondents. Subsequently when the petitioner corporation stepped into the shoes of Central Warehousing Corporation, it also joined the said litigation pending through a Title Suit. Admittedly that suit was dismissed for default. 3 Considering the nature of impugned notices contained in Annexures 4 & 6, it must be held that this writ petition cannot be governed by the judgment rendered earlier by a Division Bench in CWJC No. 1119 of 1991. In the present case it is found that the pleadings are rather vague and there is no direct challenge to the assessment of municipal tax. Neither those assessment orders have been annexed nor their dates and other details are disclosed. In such circumstances, it is not possible to decide the correctness and legality of the assessment orders which appears to be the main issue of dispute between the parties. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. It would be open for the petitioner Corporation to first approach the statutory authorities either through appeal or representation if the dispute between the parties still subsists. Kundan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)