C.W.P. No. 16123 of 2007 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16123 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 25, 2008 Punjab State Electricity Board, Verpal Naraingarh, Chheratta,Amritsar .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr. H.C. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.R.D. Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.3. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Punjab State Electricity Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.1.2005 (Annexure P5) passed by the Superintending Engineer (Civil), Municipal Corporation, Amritsar; and the order dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure P8) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the notices which have been issued for recovery of the house tax for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 based upon the Assessment Order dated 25.1.2005. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the C.W.P. No. 16123 of 2007 -2- impugned orders. In this case, the respondent-Municipal Corporation in exercise of the power conferred under Section 103(1)(f) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 vide order dated 25.1.2005 revised the assessment of the Annual Rental Value of the building and land of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2003-04 after inviting objections to the proposed assessment and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer (Civil), Municipal Corporation, Amritsar after considering the material available on the record and the measurement of the plot and the number of buildings constructed thereon, had assessed Annual Rental Value @ Rs.18.00 lacs per annum. Against the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The same has also been dismissed upholding the aforesaid assessment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid assessment is totally arbitrary and the same is excessive and unreasonable. As far as liability to pay house tax of the building in question is concerned, the same has not been questioned by the counsel for the petitioner. He is only questioning the impugned orders on the ground that the assessment of Annual Rental Value is excessive and unreasonable. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the property in question of the petitioner comprises of 18 flats, 12 quarters, office and sub-stations, and the total area in which these constructions are existing, is near-about 10 acres. It has been noticed that the petitioner is charging rent from its employee, who are C.W.P. No. 16123 of 2007 -3- residing in those flats and quarters, as the same is being deducted from their salary. It has also been noticed that the petitioner-Board is a commercial organization and is selling electricity through its sub-stations. Keeping in view all these factors, the aforesaid assessment was made. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or unreasonableness in the aforesaid assessment order. In the last, counsel for the petitioner argued that since it is a dispute between a Local body and a Public Sector Undertaking, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 and this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. House Tax Sub Committee Municipal Council, Batala and others, CWP No.18961 of 2005 decided on 29.8.2006, the matter should be referred to the Committee which has been constituted by the State Government for deciding such disputes. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel because in our view the assessment of Annual Rental Value made by the respondent-Corporation is perfectly legal and valid, therefore, there is no necessity to refer the dispute to any Committee. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 25, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE