CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7824 OF 1993 ==== In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ===== Smt. Jugeshwari Devi W/o Dr.R.C.Ram, Rampur Road, Bazar Samiti Bahadpur Patna P.S. Kadamkuan District Patna ------ Petitioners versus 1. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Administrator, Patna 2. Assistant Administrator, Bankipur Circle Patna Municipal Corporation,Both at Budh Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. ------ Respondents ===== For the petitioner : Mr. Birendra Mohan Singh And Mrs. Anjana Mishra For the Respondents: Mr. Chandra Shekhar ===== P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J., The background to filing of the present writ application is on going dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation over what would be the correct assessment of tax for the holding of the petitioner in question. Some time in the year 1992 the annual rental value of the property under the purported exercise of power under section 139 of Patna Municipal Corporation Act was made at Rs. 13,000/- but on an appeal vide order dated 20.7.1992 this amount was reduced to Rs. 11,000/- and the petitioner started paying the holding tax on such a decision but in yet another action of the respondents the issue of annual rental value of the property was 2 reopened by respondent Patna Municipal Corporation and a figure of Rs. 80,000/- was worked out. A demand was raised on the petitioner and the petitioner decided to appeal against the said demand. From perusal of annexure-4 it is evident that the matter had been heard over many years but hearing was nothing substantive. Except for adjournments, the merit of the matter was never gone into. On 14.5.1993 the administrator in his order records that the petitioner would pay 50% of the annual rental value of Rs. 80,000/- and the merit of the matter would be decided at a later date. When no final adjudication was made for quite some time, petitioner decided to file the present writ application on the ground that the demand raised cannot be enforced in absence of a final adjudication attaining finality in view of mandate of law laid down under section 153 of the Act. He is precluded from challenging the order before the District Judge and testing the validity of such a decision. His contention is that he is being forced to pay taxes even without a proper assessment having been finally made against him. 2. A perusal of annexure-4 is a clear indication of adhocism in decision making by the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation. The power of deciding annual rental value is surely within their domain under the Act but a decisive opinion will have to be recorded one way or the other to at least allow every person to move the 3 next higher forum and test its validity, if not the reasonableness of such a decision. 3. Since in the present case the administrator has not rendered his opinion on the merits of the matter he is precluded from demanding municipal holding tax from the petitioner on the basis of annual rental value of Rs. 80,000/- or even payment of 50% thereof. The orders and the demand of holding tax raised are quashed. Liberty however, is granted to the concerned authority that he shall decide the matter in accordance with law and then thereafter enforce the same. 4. The writ application is accordingly allowed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 4.12.2008 AI/NAFR