CWP No.7728 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 9.2.2011 Parmila Devi and another .........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present : Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the respondent corporation assessed the house tax of the property in question of the petitioners @ Rs.64,800/-P.A., by virtue of impugned order dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P-4), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-4), the petitioners filed the appeal which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, by way of impugned order dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-5). 3. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-4 and P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, pleading that the respondent corporation has illegally enhanced the house tax, without any cogent basis, particularly, when it was brought to its notice that the property in question, is not on rent with any person, rather the same is in CWP No.7728 of 2007 2 possession of the mortgagee. The Appellate Authority was stated to have illegally dismissed their appeal on a technical ground. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners sought the quashment of impugned orders (Annexures P-4 and P-5), in the manner indicated hereinabove. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading that the Corporation has rightly assessed the house tax on the basis of material and consent of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and no interference is warranted, in this connection. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that the Municipal Corporation assessed the house tax by means of impugned order (Annexure P-4). The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), the operative part of which is as under - “As per the assertion of the Municipal Corporation, the property in question is situated in main market near Railway Station. On the ground floor and first floor, there is shop of cloths. Notice for assessment of Rs.81,000/-was issued to the appellant and after hearing the appellants it was reduced to Rs.64,800/-to which husband of the appellant No.1 agreed. Moreover, payment of house tax is must under Section 147 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 before filing the appeal which has not been deposited by the appellants and as such the appeal is not maintainable.” 7. Thus, the main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the Appellate Authority, in this respect, was that since the appellant did not deposit the indicated amount, prior to the filing of the appeal, so, the same is not maintainable. Here, to my mind, the Appellate Authority slipped into legal error in this context. 8. What is not disputed here is that this writ petition came up for CWP No.7728 of 2007 3 hearing and a Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioners to deposit the outstanding arrears of house tax, by means of order dated 10.3.2008. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have already deposited the impugned amount, vide receipt bearing No.0699 of 18.3.2008. 9. The contentions of learned counsel that although petitioners have already deposited the impugned amount but even otherwise, it was the duty of the Appellate Authority to provide them opportunity to pay the indicated amount, if he has formed an opinion that the appeal was not maintainable without prior deposit of amount of house tax and the impugned orders are cryptic and non-speaking orders, have considerable force. This controversy is not res-integra but is well settled. 10. An identical question was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in case ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited, Amritsar v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar , 1999 (1) PLR 254, wherein having interpreted the provisions of Section 146 of the Act, it was ruled (para 6) as under :- “We have given serious thought to the respective submissions and agree with Shri Sarin that the order passed by the government deserves to be voided on the ground of principles of natural justice because it does not contain reasons. It cannot be disputed that while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 146 of the Act of 1976, the government was discharging quasi-judicial functions and, therefore, it was duty bound to record cogent reasons for not accepting the request of the petitioner to hear and decide the appeal without insisting on prior deposit of the tax. In any case, the government should have given opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the tax if it felt that the appeal does not deserve to be entertained without prior deposit of the arrears of tax. In our view, the government's failure to given an opportunity to the petitioner to fulfill the requirement of the statute and also in view of the fact that the petitioner deposited the amount of arrears immediately after the rejection of its appeal, we find it just and proper to set aside the order Annexure P-9 with the direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided afresh.” 11. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is CWP No.7728 of 2007 4 applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Moreover, the impugned order is non-speaking, non-reasoned order and is the result of lack of application of mind in this regard. The appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective. Such statutory authority, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently instead of functioning as a representative of the State/M.C. It is now well settled principle of law that every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. The same are totally lacking in this case. In this manner and on the same grounds, to me, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) cannot legally be sustained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lets it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently the Impugned order (Annexure P-5) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority (Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot), for its fresh decision on merits in the light of aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 13. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 14.3.2011. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 9th Feb., 2011 AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No