M/s. Krishna Rice Mills vs Municipal Council and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala and order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present case are that the premises of the petitioner are assessed to house-tax and petitioner is paying the house tax to the Municipal Committee @ Rs. 7785/- per year, but the house-tax for the period 1997-98 to 2002-03 already stood paid. It is further averred that the petitioner had received a notice dated 15.02.2002 u/s 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short "the Act") whereby the gross annual rental value of the premises was proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 3,90,000/- from Rs. 51,900/-. It is further averred that the respondents issued notice u/s 80(2) of the Act on the basis of bill no. 25/86 upon which the petitioner applied for copy of assessment order, but respondents failed to supply the copy of assessment order. The respondents have issued bill no. 7 dated 26.09.2007 demanding a payment of Rs. 7, 62, 767/- which is illegal, null and void qua the right of petitioner. The trial Court after considering the documents has dismissed the injunction application vide impugned order dated 4.1.2010 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated 21.5.2013. Hence, this revision.

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

Perusal of record shows that the petitioner is aggrieved against the demand of house-tax raised by the Municipal Council, Kapurthala in pursuance to assessment made under the provisions of the Act. It would be pertinent to mention here that earlier Section 3(1)(b) of the Act was declared ultra vires by this Court, however, the Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court upholding the validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act vide judgment rendered in Municipal Committee, Patiala Vs. Model Town Residents Asson. and Others, . In pursuance to the earlier order of this Court, the bills were not sent to the petitioner. After passing of judgment (supra) by the Hon''ble Supreme Court with regard to the validity of Section 3 (1)(b) of the Act, the demand has been raised. Once the assessment is there, the petitioner otherwise has remedies against the assessment of tax under the provisions of the Act. He can prefer appeal to the statutory authorities and if still aggrieved, he can approach this Court under the writ jurisdiction. Otherwise also, this is a money matter and question of irreparable loss does not arise.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 04.01.2010 and 21.05.2013.

Dismissed. However, the trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible.