IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4292 of 2006 SHEO DAYAL RAY, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA RAY, RESIDENT OF QR. NO. C-132 POLICE EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD. ANISABAD (PAHARPUR) P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BIKASH BHAVAN, PATNA. 2. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE BUDHMARG PATNA-1 (OPPOSITE G.P.O. PATNA) 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUTAN RAJDHANI ANCHAL PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, PATNA NEAR IRRIGATION SECRETARIAT, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 14.03.2011. Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard the petitioner (in person) and learned counsel for the Corporation. 3. Petitioner is the resident of Police Colony, Anisabad which has been established in Village- Paharpur after acquisition of 47.50 acres of land by the State Government out of 300 acres of land available in the said village. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under notification of the Corporation published in the newspaper Hindustan, Annexure-1 along with other areas 26 acres of village- - 2 - Paharpur was also brought within the municipal limit of the Corporation and on the basis of the said notification Holding Tax is being demanded from the petitioner without providing any of the civic amenities, as is required to be provided in terms of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. It is also submitted that perusal of the notification, Annexure-1 would indicate that the boundary of the 26 acres which has been included within the municipal area out of the 300 acres of Village- Paharpur has also not been indicated, as such, it is very difficult for the petitioner and other residents of the police colony to know whether their house has been included within the municipal limit. 4. Highlighting the aforesaid contention petitioner having received the demand notice dated 01.12.2005 , Annexure-3 filed representation dated 13.01.2006, Annexure-3/1 asserting that without notifying the boundary of the 26 acres of the land of Village- Paharpur the Holding Tax cannot be levied on him and - 3 - other residents of the police colony. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it does not appear that the representation of the petitioner, Annexure-3/1 has yet been considered and disposed of. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Municipal Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.01.2006, Annexure-3/1 in accordance with law and pass appropriate order as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Until disposal of the representation, Annexure-3/1, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for not paying the demand dated 01.12.2005, Annexure-3. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)