M/s. Khushi Ram Dwarka Nath vs Municipal Corporation and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Both the above mentioned Civil Writ Petitions viz. CWP No. 2037 of 1991 and CWP No. 3792 of 1991 have been listed together for hearing. Both the above mentioned Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 2037 of 1991. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts from this case are being taken. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 26.11.1987 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 1 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and order dated 05.06.1990 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners has been rejected by passing a non-speaking order against the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act.

Brief facts of the case are that Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") raised a demand of house tax for different years from the petitioners. The properties are in self occupation of the owners. From time to time, the annual value was sought to be increased and higher house tax was being claimed. The action of the Corporation was challenged on the ground that Section 93(b) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is applicable, whereunder it is the duty of the Corporation to assess the annual rental value of the premises for which the same may reasonably be expected to be let, which value has to be determined on the basis of the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act"). No determination was made in the aforesaid manner for fixing the rental value. It is the case of the petitioners that it has been arbitrarily fixed ignoring sub-section (b) of Section 93 of the Act by making a reference to sub-section (c) of Section 93 of the Act, which is not applicable to the case. The petitioners approached this Court. A bunch of petitions were decided by this Court vide order dated 11.02.1980 (Annexure P/1) whereby the impugned orders in those petitions were set aside. It was held that it would be open to the Corporation to proceed to make fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of Section 93(b) of the Act after taking into consideration the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. Vs. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Another, Thereafter, fresh assessment was made by the Corporation vide order dated 26.11.1987 (Annexure P/2). Against that order, the petitioners preferred appeal, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division vide order dated 05.06.1990 (Annexure P/4). It is the case of the petitioners that the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division passed a non-speaking order. Hence, this writ petition.

In pursuance of notice of motion, respondent - Corporation filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition and submitted that they have acted in accordance with law and order passed by the Municipal Corporation as well as order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division are as per the directions issued by this Court in the earlier decision of the Division Bench.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It would be appropriate to refer to the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, the relevant part of which reads as under:-

I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the record received from the Corporation carefully. The impugned orders are detailed and self-speaking. The objections raised by the appellants have been duly considered by the learned Commissioner while passing the orders. The directions given by the Hon''ble High Court have been distinctly kept in view. I, therefore, see no reasons to differ with the findings contained in the impugned orders. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that order (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division is not sustainable. It is non-speaking and no reasons have been recorded. As such, this is a cryptic and non-speaking order.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the order is in accordance with law and as per the directions issued by this Court in the earlier decision (supra).

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the finding recorded by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been only mentioned in the order that he has perused the record received from the Corporation carefully. The impugned order passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (Annexure P/2) is detailed and self-speaking. The objections raised by the appellants have been duly considered by the Commissioner of the Corporation in accordance with law and the High Court directions. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division before whom the statutory appeal was filed has not taken into consideration the pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioners before him. The order is non-speaking. Statutory authority being a quasi judicial authority is required to pass a speaking order considering the arguments raised by the parties before it.

In view of this, impugned order dated 05.06.1990 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division for fresh decision with a direction to pass a speaking order dealing with all the arguments and the grounds taken in the appeal, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 02.09.2013. Both the aforesaid civil writ petitions are disposed of in the above said terms.