R.S.A. No. 3362 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3362 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2009 Municipal Corporation Patiala ....appellant versus Dr. N.D. Aggarwal and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Palli, Sr Advocate, with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents seeking injunction against the defendant/appellant from charging water discharge charges on the ground that the bill raised was illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff/respondents, has been decreed. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant primarily on the ground that the tax has been imposed in pursuance to the notification issued by the State Government in 1994, imposing water discharge charges on the persons who are using their own water and discharging R.S.A. No. 3362 of 2005 (O&M) -2- the same in the sewerage of the Corporation. It was also the case of the defendant/appellant that the said notification was adopted by way of resolution dated 17.4.1995, and it was on the basis of said resolution adopting the notification that the bill was raised and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondents had not locus standi to challenge the imposition of tax by the Municipal Corporation, which was as per the authority of law vested in them. The learned trial Court decreed the suit primarily by holding that the notification was issued in the year 1994 and, therefore, the said notification was not applicable to the appellant/defendant and, thus, no water discharge charges could be imposed. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Arun Palli, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the finding recorded by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of statutory provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, thus, perverse?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Courts below wrongly came to the conclusion that imposition of water discharge charges is not covered under Section 90 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the finding is outcome of misreading of Section 90 of the Punjab R.S.A. No. 3362 of 2005 (O&M) -3- Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, as under Section 90(2)(b), the Corporation has power to impose such taxes and, therefore, it could not be said, that there was no such authority with the Municipal Corporation, to impose this tax. When it was imposed in pursuance to the notification issued by the State Government, which was adopted by the predecessor of the defendant/appellant i.e. Municipal Committee, Patiala. Though, there is force in the contention, that the learned Courts below were not right in holding that the Corporation did not have jurisdiction to impose the water discharge charges under Section 90 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, however, the defendant/appellant cannot succeed in the present appeal, as admittedly in order to impose taxes covered under Section 90(2)(b), it was incumbent upon the Corporation to have followed the procedure for imposition of such a tax under the Act. In case, the Corporation failed to do so, then the Government was required to pass order imposing such tax to give authority to the Corporation. Admittedly, no procedure as envisaged under the Act was followed, and the notification was adopted as such, without giving an opportunity to file objections by the residents, as envisaged under the Act. Therefore, the bill raised was null and void and had no authority of law, as in absence of an order passed after following due process of law, no tax could be imposed. The learned Courts below were, therefore, right in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents, and the judgment and decree does not call for any interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the R.S.A. No. 3362 of 2005 (O&M) -4- defendant/appellant to impose water discharge charges on the plaintiff and other residents by following due process of law, as per provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. With above observations, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 21, 2009 R.S.