CWP No.1020 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1020 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 **** Associated Busines Computers . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. HS Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. GS Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue took a policy decision dated 06.09.2005 (Annexure P2) to get the Geographical Survey of the properties conducted within the municipal limits with the following object:- “Keeping in view, the current financial position of Urban Local Bodies in the State of Punjab and lack of initiatives undertaken by the respective municipalities to recover pending arrears of all taxes/fees, it has inter alia been decided to engage a private agency for carrying out the survey of all the properties in the CWP No.1020 of 2010.doc - 2 – State of Punjab with the objective to enhance the current revenue and generate more resources by assessing total area of the properties (unit-wise), covered area, type of construction, type of activity undertaken in a particular property besides water supply and sewerage connections, license fee levied, etc. etc. the purpose besides above is to study the existing municipal structure as well. For achieving the desired results, a comprehensive format has been designed wherein all details and inputs gained through the survey shall be incorporated (Format enclosed).” (2). The petitioner was allocated the task of the above-stated Geographical Survey within the municipal area of Municipal Council, Sangrur. It appears that on submission of the Survey Report by the petitioner in the year 2006 the matter was taken up for making payment of Rs.1,89,794/- which was approved at the level of the Director, Local Government, Punjab. Meanwhile, the Municipal Council, Sangrur passed a resolution against the above-stated payment and pursuant thereto, the contents of the Survey Report submitted by the petitioner was also got verified at random. The Deputy Director, CWP No.1020 of 2010.doc - 3 – Local Government, Patiala submitted a report dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure R3/6), the relevant extracts of which, reads as follows:- “1) HOUSE TAX With regard to house tax the record of 8 wards out of 21 wards has been verified. According to this verification there are differences in 85 units where it has been found that as per municipal record for the year 2005-2006 the house tax has already been imposed on these units but house tax not shown imposed on these units as per survey registers submitted by the petitioner. The summary of differences is given below: Sr.No. Ward No. No. of Houses / Units No. of Units where difference s found Whether House Tax imposed or not as per survey registers submitte d by the petitioner Whether House Tax imposed or not as per C.D. of survey submitte d by the petitioner Whether House Tax impose d or not as per MC record for the year (2005- 06) 1 2 1210 4 No No Yes 2 3 1120 15 No No Yes 3 6 700 13 No No Yes 4 8 656 5 No No Yes 5 12 748 14 No No Yes 6 15 780 13 No No Yes 7 17 648 3 No No Yes 8 19 986 18 No No Yes 1) WATER SUPPLY CWP No.1020 of 2010.doc - 4 – With regard to water supply connections the record of 7 wards out of 21 wards has been checked and verified. According to this verification it has been found that as per municipal record for the year 2005- 2006 there were 8118 water taps in 6502 houses/units in these 7 wards, but as per survey registers submitted by the petitioner there are only 6860 water taps in these 6502 houses/units in these 7 wards. Accordingly there is difference of 1258 water taps. The summary of difference is given below: Sr.No. Ward No. No.of Houses / Units No. of water taps as per MC record for the year 2005- 06 No. of Water taps as per survey registers submitte d by the petitioner Differenc e of water taps 1 2 1210 1775 1425 350 2 4 560 774 438 336 3 5 1660 1258 1101 157 4 7 708 1031 870 161 5 11 936 1352 1201 151 6 15 780 939 904 35 7 17 648 989 921 68 Total 6502 8118 6860 1258 These differences are found only in 7 wards. Accordingly there can be much difference in total 21 wards. So according to above report it shows that the survey was wrong and municipal Council has to suffer heavy financial loss. The original copy of survey in CD and duplicate CD has been sealed and are being sent to you for future necessary action.” CWP No.1020 of 2010.doc - 5 – (3). Based upon the alleged large discrepancies in the Geographical Survey conducted by the petitioner that respondent No.3 as well as the Municipal Council, Sangrur have filed their replies/affidavits disputing the petitioner’s entitlement for the payment of Rs.1,89,794/- as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the stand taken by the respondents that the Survey Report given by the petitioner is full of loopholes and does not help at all to achieve the object contained in the Government Decision dated 06.09.2005 (Annexure P2), I am of the considered view that the disputed issues raised by the petitioner cannot be effectively resolved in these proceedings. (5). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and/or to seek reference to the Arbitrator by invoking the Arbitration Clause, if so advised. (6). Dasti . 10.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge