IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15514 of 2007 Date of Decision: 09.09.2010 R.S.Dahiya and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Parshad, D.A.G., Haryana for respondents No.1,2 & 5. Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.4. ****** VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the imposition of house tax on the ground that premises in their possession not completed yet and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council, Panchkula, as the possession of the area is yet to be handed over to the Municipal Council, Panchkula by the Director, Town and Country Planning. The stand of the respondents is that under the agreement executed between the Town and Country Planning Department and Municipal Council, the area where the petitioners have their residences/offices has been handed over, therefore, no challenge can be made to the imposition of house tax. Civil Writ Petition No.15514 of 2007 -2- It is not necessary to go into this dispute for the present, as the petitioners admitted, that they are liable to pay the tax. The only prayer made was, that in view of the fact that they were under the impression that no house tax was payable, they could not pay the house tax, in spite of demand and, therefore, the interest/penalty has been imposed upon them. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners was that as the house tax was not paid under the bona fide mistake, the interest/penalty on the house tax be waived of. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Municipal Council, Panchkula, on instructions, states that it has been decided in principle, to waive the interest/penalty imposed on petitioner and similarly situated person for delay in deposit of tax, provided the petitioners and other similarly situated person pay the house tax within one month from today. The respondent No.3 is directed to issue fresh notice to similarly situated non-purchaser for deposit. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent- Municipal Council, Panchkula, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. September 09, 2010 (Vinod K. Sharma) Gagan Judge