IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2922 of 2004 BHUWANESHWAR UPADHYAY, aged about 50 years, son of Late Dwarika Nath Upadhyay, resident of Mohall- Dharmashala Area, Rajgir, P.S.-Rajgir, District Nalanda at Biharshariff. ...................Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nalanda though its Chairman. 4. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nalanda. 5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, Nalanda. 6. The Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Rajgir-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda. ......Respondents. ----------- 2/ 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a demand notice dated 16.02.2004 (Annexure 6) issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgir Nagar Panchayat (respondent no.5), whereby he has been asked to deposit Rs. 33,600/- (thirty three thousand six hundred) towards municipal tax for financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04 in terms of Section 123 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” only). 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that petitioner had been paying the municipal tax to the Rajgir Notified Area Committee, as it 2 was at the relevant time, subsequently, named as Rajgir Nagar Panchayat with the change of law. The petitioner claims to have paid municipal taxes up to the financial year 1996. It is also submitted that subsequently, without any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the municipal taxes were unilaterally enhanced and thereafter notices were issued to the petitioner. Petitioner came to this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the action of respondent-Nagar Panchayat, certain orders were passed by this Court and even thereafter the final decisions are not being taken by the authority concerned, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Yet the impugned demand notice (Annexure 6) has been issued, which in his submission, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. The order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13939 of 2002 on 29.07.2003 (Annexure-5) with respect to demand notice dated 21.08.2002 for the financial year 2001- 02 has been brought on record to demonstrate that, despite direction issued by this Court, the authorities have not taken final decision in the matter and yet the fresh impugned demand notice has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that unless and until the previous 3 order issued by this Court on 29.07.2003 (Annexure-5) is complied with and fresh decision is taken by the authority concerned, the respondent-authorities are not justified in enhancing the municipal tax against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has fairly conceded that though he had not received any instruction from the respondents till date, yet from the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has not deposited municipal tax at all after 1996. In his submission, the petitioner is obliged to deposit the municipal tax, as was earlier fixed, and matter can be adjudicated regarding enhancement of tax after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, this court finds that after 1996, the petitioner has not deposited any municipal tax with the respondent-Nagar Panchayat. This court further finds that the impugned notice as contained in Annexure 6, has been issued without taking final decision by the authorities in the light of order and direction dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure 5), passed by this Court. The impugned action of the respondents appears to be not 4 justified in the eye of law. The matter is required to be examined and adjudicated afresh by a speaking order by respondent no. 5. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the petitioner is hereby directed to deposit Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) with respondent-Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir, District Nalanda within a period of two months from today, which shall be adjusted towards the original tax of Nagar Panchayat since 1997. The respondent no. 5 shall pass a fresh speaking order regarding the claim of the petitioner that the respondents are not authorised to enhance the municipal tax with respect to petitioner as indicated above in the notice and particularly, in the light of order and direction dated 29.07.2003, passed in CWJC No. 13939 of 2002 (Annexure 5). If the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) within the time fixed by this Court and appears before respondent no. 5 with a detailed representation along with a certified copy of this order, then the respondent no. 5 shall be obliged to decide the entire claim afresh and re- determine the municipal tax payable by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of representation and deposits made by the 5 petitioner. If it is found by the respondents that the petitioner has already deposited more taxes, then that much amount shall either be adjusted towards future municipal tax or shall be refunded to the petitioner. However, on re-determination of taxes, if it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay more taxes, then it will be within the discretion of the authority to fix a reasonable time for payment of such arrear of taxes by the petitioner. Till the matter is finally disposed of by respondents no. 5, the impugned demand notice (Annexure 6) shall not be given effect to and shall be kept in abeyance. 8. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not deposit Rs.20,000/- with the respondent Nagar Panchayat, Rajgir and does not appear before respondent no. 5 with detailed representation and a certified copy of this order within the time prescribed, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition has been finally rejected by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J ) 6