C.W.P. No. 8571 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8571 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.10.2010. Food Corporation of India (Punjab Region) Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus The Municipal Committee, Barnala and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. S.K. Lamba and Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocates for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J This writ petition has been filed by the Food Corporation of India, impugning the order of the Appellate Authority, under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911,( hereinafter called 'the Act') vide which its appeal challenging the quantum of house tax assessed by the Assessing Authority under the Act has been dismissed, only on the ground that the appeal was presented by an Officer who was not authorized to do so. Amongst other contentions that have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has contended that the assessment so made by the Assessing Authority is completely arbitrary, and no criteria recognized by law was followed in doing so and the exercise was totally contrary to the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as AIR 1980 Supreme Court 541, Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another etc., and further that the assessment was illogical for the reason that two godowns having similar capacity have been assessed variously by the same Assessing Authority. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be answered in Civil Writ Petition as this Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as C.W.P. No. 8571 of 1991 2 the controversy involves the determination of facts as well. The fact whether the godowns referred to by the petitioner in para-10 of the petition are having similar or same capacity is a question of fact and like-wise whether the Assessing Authority resorted to the procedure in assessing the house tax after determining the standard rent of evaluating the annual rent that a building may be expected to fetch is also a question which needs to be determined and finalized by the Appellate Authority before it is put to test. Since, in the instant proceedings the impugned order Annexure P-8 has been passed merely on the ground that the appeal was not presented by a competent person as the District Manager was not empowered through any letter or resolution to file the appeal and as such no order adverting to the merits of the case has been passed. The Court is also of the considered opinion that this has resulted in a denial of substantial right to the petitioner and therefore, it will be appropriate to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority, with a direction to decide the same on merits by taking into consideration all the contentions that have been raised here in this petition. Since the matter pertains to the assessment and recovery of tax and the impugned order was passed in the year 1990, the Court also deems it appropriate to observe that the Appellate Authority shall dispose of and redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of four months on receipt of copy of the order. The Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) 12.10.2010. JUDGE Reema