THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION Nos. 7067 OF 2000 AND 4297 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Since these two writ petitions involve common questions, hence they are being taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in these writ petitions is one of the oldest paper mills established and located in a backward area i.e., Adilabad district. Having regard to its location and with a view to develop in and around areas apart from providing employment opportunities, it was set up in the year 1939-40 and later on it has been running all along with substantial activity. Apart from the development in the business itself, the petitioner company is taking the development of the area which is known as “Sirpur-Kagaznagar” by providing various facilities like roads, sanitation, water and providing quarters, street lighting etc. The petitioner company has provided location for police station and residential quarters of various officials including Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandal Revenue Officer etc. Even it has gone to the extent of construction of temple, mosque and church and educational institutions, details of which have already been narrated in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that for the first time, the respondent municipality has demanded for payment of tax in the year 1997 and petitioner without any witness as to its liability has been paying and subsequently it has made protest on the ground that since it is providing all the facilities, the question of levying any tax on it, does not arise. There has been various other demands on levy and ultimately the petitioner submitted a representation on 11.8.1999 apart from the other earlier letter seeking exemption of sub clause 3 and 4 of Section 88 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, on the ground that respondent is conglomerate of the taxes for the services and in regard to the service rendered by the municipalities and especially when facilities have been provided by the petitioner the liability cannot be fastened on it. Since, no orders are forthcoming, the petitioner had to file W.P. No. 18459 of 1999 which was disposed of on 16.9.1999 directing the Government to consider the petitioner’s representation and to pass appropriate orders. However, no orders are passed and again the petitioner had to file another writ petition in W P No. 1383 of 2000 which was also disposed of by orders dated 22-2-2001 therefore the said writ petition was closed and now the petitioner has made challenge to the said proceedings mainly on the ground that in spite of the directions given by this Court earlier, the petitioner’s case has not been properly considered and various objections raised including as to the various facilities provided by the petitioner itself, has not been waved with vis-à-vis the services rendered by the respondent municipality, therefore the petitioner seeks to assail the same by way of this writ petition. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, there is no dispute to the aforesaid events whereby the petitioner has been pursuing at various levels including this Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for considering its case especially taking note of the various services rendered by them and entitlement for exemption. Although, earlier the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no. 18459 of 1999 dated 16th September, 1999 of which one of us i.e., Justice B Prakash Rao was party, has disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the representation shall be considered by the Government and in the meanwhile the petitioner was asked to pay certain amounts. However, in spite of such directions now under the impugned orders dated 14-2-2002 the Government rejected the petitioner’s claim for exemption only on the ground that the municipality has resolved in its resolution no. 71 dated 30th October, 2000 for not accepting such exemption. On a bare reading of the impugned proceedings it shows clearly that the Government did not pay any attention to various aspects as pointed out by the petitioner in its representation and also directed by this Court earlier nor given any reasons on its own as to why the petitioner is not entitled for any such exemption, merely because the municipality rejects such a request and passed a resolution. The resolution passed by the municipality is not binding on the Government, necessarily, the Government has to look into the case from proper perspective, especially keeping in view various services and amenities provided by the petitioner and then to consider as to whether the claim for exemption is justified or not, instead it is only on the basis of the resolution of the municipality, the Government sought to reject the same, which is totally illegal. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that having regard to the direction already given and especially keeping in view the various facts and circumstances and parameters as contemplated under the law, the matter requires reconsideration by the Government. We make it clear once again, that claim of the petitioner as to its contribution since date of its inception has to be necessarily borne in mind vis-à-vis the claim for any such demand by the respondent municipality and their entitlement for exemption. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner company. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ________________ C.Y.SOMAYAJULU,J DATE: -07-2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION Nos. 7067 OF 2000 AND 4297 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Date: -07-2008