CWP No.16919 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16919 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.07.2010 Union of India ....Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand made by respondent No.2 from the petitioner with regard to Service Charges/Fire Cess vide Notices dated 9.11.2006 and 26.2.2007 and the subsequent order dated 3.4.2007. The petition was contested by the respondents. During the pendency of this writ petition the matter in issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of civil appeals. One such appeal being civil appeal No.9458-9463 of 2003 titled Rajkot Municipal Corporation and others Vs. Union of India, decided on 19.11.2009 wherein with the consent of the local bodies and the Government, the appeals were disposed off by issuing following directions: - CWP No.16919 of 2007 (O&M) -2- “(i) The Union of India and its departments will pay service charges for the services provided by the appellant municipal corporation. They will no pay any property tax. The service charges will be paid at 75%, 50% and 33 1/3% respectively of the property tax levied on private owners, depending upon whether Union of India or its department is uitilizing the full services, or partial services or nil services. The Union of India represented by its concerned department will enter into agreements/understandings in regard to service charges for each of its properties, with the respective municipal corporation. (ii) The above arrangement is open to modification or periodical revisions by mutual consent. In the event of disagreement on any issue, parties will resort to a dispute resolution mechanism by reference to a three Member Mediation Committee consisting of a representative of the Central government, a representative of a concerned municipal corporation and a senior representative (preferably the Secretary in charge of the department of municipal administration) of the State of Gujrat. (iii) If Railways or any other department of Union of India owning a property changes the agreement/understanding unilaterally, or fail to reach a settlement through the Mediation Committee in regard to any disputes, or fails to clear the dues, it is open to the concerned Municipal Corporation to initiate such action, as it deems fit in accordance with law by approaching the jurisdictional courts/tribunal for final and interim relief. (iv) The municipal corporations shall not resort to coercive steps (such as stoppage of supplies/services) nor resort to revenue recovery proceedings for CWP No.16919 of 2007 (O&M) -3- recovery of any service charge dues from Union of India or its departments. (v) The service charges payable by Union of India will under no circumstances be more than the service charges paid by State government for its properties. Wherever exemptions or concessions are granted to the properties belonging to the state government, the same shall also apply to the properties of Union of India. (vi) If the Railways does not to abide by the four general circulars of the Union of India dated 10.5.1954, 29.3.1967, 28.5.1976 and 25.8.1986 and the general consensus set out above, it is open to municipal corporation to take such action as is permissible in law.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that this appeal has to be decided on merits as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, will not be applicable as the petitioner is not willing to give consent and would like to contest the case in view of the settled law that no service tax can be imposed on the department of the Union of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be treated to be a precedent, as it has not laid down any law which can be treated to be precedent. The petitioner seeks quashing of notices referred to above on the ground that the notices cannot be sustained in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Purna Municipal Council and others, AIR 1992 SC 1597, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs. Sernior Superintendent of Post Offices, (2004) 3 CWP No.16919 of 2007 (O&M) -4- Supreme Court Cases 92, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corpn. Ranch & Ors., JT 1996 (3) SC 171 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.6552 of 2000 titled Municipal Corporation of Patiala and another Vs. Union of India decided on 18.1.2007. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is so aggrieved with regard to imposition of the tax, then the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided remedy for referring the matter to a three Member Mediation Committee. The object of passing the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the departments inter se should not be litigating in the Courts by wasting public money, and should get their cases decided by Mediation Committee, as referred to above in the judgment in civil appeal No.9458-9463 of 2003 (supra), para (iii) of the judgment deals with a situation where a department of Union of India fails to reach a settlement. The case of the petitioner is not different from the other writ petitions which were ordered to be heard with this petition. Consequently, this writ petition is also disposed off in the same terms as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 19, 2010 R.S.