IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9684 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 Queens Pride Hotel & Resort, Amritsar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel contends that under Annexure P-5 (notification dated 4.9.2003), classified hotels and restaurants for the first 5 years are not amenable to house tax under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Despite such facts, notice dated 8.8.2009, Annexure P-6, has been issued to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel contends that objections (Annexure P-7) have been filed by the petitioner indicating that under the notification, tax is not recoverable from the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that every month the petitioner is CWP No.9684 of 2011 [2] summoned in the office of the Municipal Corporation in harassment of the petitioner. Neither assessment has been made nor any final order has been passed which could be challenged under a statutory appeal. Be that as it may, learned counsel contends that a citizen cannot be harassed on the whims of the public servants as is being done in the present case. 3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 4. At this stage, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to quash order Annexure P-6. However, having filed objections, the petitioner is entitled to decision on the objections without any harassment. 5. The petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 viz. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, to take decision on the objections filed by the petitioner, placed on record as Annexure P-7. Decision be taken after giving one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide a speaking order, and in context of Notification dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure P-5). 6. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be called time and again, and shall be given one firm date of hearing. (AJAI LAMBA) May 30, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? CWP No.9684 of 2011 [3] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?