IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1530 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 30, 2009 Jaswinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Municipal Corporation, Patiala & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of order dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 11.10.2005 (Annexure P-8). Vide order dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure P-6), house tax has been imposed on the petitioner after considering that the assessee has shown his concurrence to the decision. Under order dated 11.10.2005 (Annexure P-8), the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 against order of assessment (Annexure P-6) has been dismissed. Perusal of order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2369 of 2006, also titled „Jaswinder Singh vs. Municipal CWP No.1530 of 2009 [2] Corporation, Patiala & Others‟ shows that these were the orders under challenge at the instance of the petitioner before this Court. The following order was passed:- “It is clear from the assessment order, Annexure P-6, and the appellate Order, Annexure P-8, that the petitioner had consented to the assessment proposed. Mr. Rakkar, however, argued that no concession had been made and the same had been wrongly recorded. In these circumstances, we are unable to give a decision either way. The petitioner may, at the first instance, approach the respondents for review, if permissible, under the law and if he fails, he would be at liberty to approach this Court yet again. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.” Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there is no provision for review in the Statute. I have considered the facts. I find that the order of assessment and the order of the appellate authority were earlier challenged before this Court. The prayer of the petitioner was not allowed. Orders Annexures P-6 and P-8 were not quashed for reasons given in the order viz. the petitioner had consented to the assessment proposed. As per the admitted position, there is no provision for review of the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to under what circumstances, the present petition has been filed although the Division Bench has already dealt with the issue and decided the same. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 30, 2009 JUDGE avin