Civil Writ Petition No.10554 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 14.1.2011 Punjab State Electricity Board ....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Mansa and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr.Rajnish Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner-Board”) has built a grid sub-station at Mansa to regulate the electricity supply to the surrounding areas. The houses of the staff were also constructed within the same premises, for the residences of the staff required for maintaining and operating the sub-station. 2. The Municipal Committee (respondent No.2) was stated to have levied and raised a demand of Rs.610/- as house tax for the assessment year 1985- 86 on the indicated residential colony of the Board in view of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The house tax was deposited by the Board on 6.3.1986. The respondent-committee was stated to have revised the assessment and enhanced the amount of house tax, by virtue of impugned order dated 26.2.1986 (Annexure P1) and raised demand, vide impugned notice dated 3.3.1986 (Annexure P2). 3. The petitioner-Board claimed that in pursuance of order dated Civil Writ Petition No.10554 of 2009 2 17.1.2008 (Annexure P4) by this Court passed in CWP No.5244 of 1986, it filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the appellate authority, by way of impugned order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P5). 4. The petitioner-Board still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 6. What is not disputed here is that CWP No.12310 of 2008 filed by the petitioner-Board, challenging the power to levy house tax by the respondent- committee, pertaining to the period of assessment year 1989-90, came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench (K.S.Garewal & Daya Chaudhary, JJ.), vide order dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure R2/1), the operative part of which is as under:- “The demand notice which was challenged before the Appellate Authority was the one issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Mansa on March 27, 1989. Copy of this assessment order is Annexure P-4. The Executive Officer has clearly recorded that “after hearing the objections and careful consideration, it has been decided that the assessment of this unit for the year 1989-90 is reduced from Rs.7,31,075/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- to which he agrees. Out of this, 10% repair charges be deducted.“ From the above it is obvious that the assessment was done when Mukhtiar Singh, Junior Engineer was present before the Executive Officer on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board and he consented the assessment. The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that the said Mukhtiar Singh was either incompetent to give consent or his consent was recorded under duress. The assessment was clearly on consent basis. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the said assessment. We find no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed.” 7. In this manner, the learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that as Civil Writ Petition No.10554 of 2009 3 the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is identical to the one decided by this Court vide order (Annexure R2/1), therefore, the present writ petition be also disposed of in the same terms. 8. Above being the position on record, the instant writ petition is also decided in the same terms of the order (Annexure R2/1) passed in CWP No.12310 of 2008. 9. Ordered accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 14.1.2011 Judge AS