Prem Singh Devi Ditia Mal vs Municipal Committee, Kaithal and another

K.S. Tiwana, J.—The Petitioner-firm owns property No. 259/II-C, situated in the town of Kaithal. The Petitioner received tax bills dated August 27, 1970, Annexure ''A'', vide which it was required to pay Rs. 1,406 25 paise as House Tax for the year 1970-71 to the Municipal Committee, Kaithal, on the re-assessed annual rental value of the property as Rs. 25,000/-. The Petitioner filed objections before the Municipal Committee which were dismissed by its Administrator, vide orders, Annexure ''D'' dated October 16, 1970, on the ground of delay.

The Petitioner has, through this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consttution of India, challenged the tax bill, Annexure ''A'' about this property and the order of the Administrator, Annexure''D'', on the ground that no public notice at required u/s 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''), was given, nor was the Petitioner served with any notice as required under the aforesaid section

In the return, the Municipal Committee, Kaithal, took a preliminary objection that the Petitioner could not approach this Court on the writ side without exhausting his right of appeal u/s 84 of the Act On merits, it was stated that the public notice as required by Section 65 of the Act was given. Due publicity was given in the town about the assessment by beat of drum and through loudspeaker. The copies of the notices were also displayed at conspicious places in the town of Kaithal The notice for the enhancement on the basis of assessment regarding this property was received by Sh. Kanshi Ram, Munim of the Petitioner firm on November 5, 1969. The notice contained a clause that if the Assessee wanted to file any objections, he could do so within 3 days It was further stated that similar notices about other properties of the Petitioner were received by same Munshi Ram on the same date and the Petitioners had filed objections in regard to this which were decided

The preliminary objection does not detain us for long No doubt, the Petitioner had the remedy to agitate against the impugned order, Annexure ''D'' by way of appeal to which he did not resort The petition was filed in 1971 and the Return was filed in this Court on July 26, 1976 I do not feel it proper to relegate the Petitioner to the remedy of appeal after ten years of the pendency of the case in this Court. It is not certain whether the decision of the appeal will have finality. Possibility cannot be ruled out that any of the parties dissatisfied with the result of the appeal may again come to this Court by way of writ petition. In the peculiar circmstances of this case, I deem it proper to negative this assertion of the Respondents and hear the case on merits.

The only question which is raised by the Petitioner is that notice u/s 65 of the Act was neither published nor served on the Petitioner It is not disputed that this is a case in which the House Tax was increased and notice u/s 65 of the Act had to be given to the owners and occupires of the house. Section 65 of the Act is as under:

(1) The Committee shall at the time of the publication of such assessment list give public notice of a time, not less than one month thereafter, when it will proceed to revise the valuation and assessment and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed, or the assessment thereof is increased, it shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property.

(2) All objections to the valuation and assessment shall be made in writing before the time fixed in the notice, or orally or in writing at that time.

Regarding publication of the notice the Respondents have taken a categoric stand that it had given publicity to the notice through various modes, i.e. by beat of drum, announcement by loudspeakers and displaying the copies of the notice at conspicuous places in the town. Even the Petitioner referred to the publication of a hand-bill of the Municipal Committee, Kaithal. In its undertones, the Petitioner has admitted the publication by accepting the publication of haud-biil The part of Section 63 of the Act about the publication of the notice is satisfied.

The other limb of the argument is that Section 65 of the Act requires the notice to be given to the owner or occupier. Since, according to the Petitioner, it was not done by the Respondent, the petition requires to be accepted. Section 65 of the Act only provides for the giving of the notice by the Municipal Committee to the owner or occupier of the building, which is freshly taxed for House-tax or the tax on it is increased It does not provide for the mode of the service of the notice which is prescribed by Section 215 of the Act. Section 215 of the Act reads as under:

(1) Every notice issued by the Committee under this Act or under any rule or bye-law shall be in writing, signed by the president, vice-president, secretary or assistant secretary, or by the members of any subcommittee specially authorised by the committee in that behalf, and every such notice and every order made u/s 193, may be served on the person to whom it is addressed, or delivered or left at his usual place of abode or business, with some adult male member or servant of bis family, or, if it cannot be so served, may be affixed to some conspicious part of his place of abode or business. (Provided that such notice may be signed by the Medical Offices of Health when it is issued by the Committee under any section of this Act under which power may be delegated to the Municipal Officer of Health under Clause (b) of Section 33 and has been so delegated).

(2) When the place of abode or business of the person to whom notice is addressed is not within the limits of the municipality, the notice may be served by posting it in a registered cover addressed to his usual place of abode

(3) If the owner of any property has no place of abode or business within the municipality, every such notice addressed to him as such owner may be served on the occupier.

(4) When the place of abode or business of the occupier of any property is not known, every such notice addressed to him as such occupier may be served by affixing it to some conspicuous part of the property.

(5) No notice issued by the committee under this Act or under any rule or bye-law shall be invalid for defect of form.

Section 215 of the Act provides various modes of service and does not insist on the personal service of the notice on the owner or occupier. Any notice issued under the Act, Rule or Bye-law, can be served on any male member of the family of the owner or occupier or even on a servant at the usual place of abode of such person or place of his business. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not right in arguing that notice u/s 65 of the Act cannot be served in any other manner except tendering it to the owner or occupier in person. The procedure for service has to be adopted which is provided in the statutory provisions meant for that purpose. Section 215 of the Act is the only provision prescribing the modes of the service of notice issued under the Act, Rules or Bye-laws framed under it and it has to be served in accordance with it. The Committee could thus serve the servant of the Petitioner.

The ether question which crops up is whether such notice was served on a person on whom it could be served on behalf of the Petitioner as referred to in Section 215 of the Act. The Respondent has taken the plea that notice was served on Kanshi Ram, munim of the Petitioner firm on November 6, 1969. Records have been produced by the Respondent. The records contain that a copy of the notice regarding property No. 259/II C was received by Munshi Ram on November 6, 1969. In token of the receipt of notice. Kanshi Ram signed in Urdu on behalf of the Petitioner- firm, under the printed space meant for the signatures of the person receiving notice With the help of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents I went through the file produced and found that 12 other similar notices about other properties of the Petitioner were received by Kanshi Ram on the same day, i e. November 16, 1969. The Petitioner has not contradicted the position stated by the Respondents that for other properties, for which notice was served on Kanshi Ram, it had filed objections. Kanshi Ram is a munim of the Petitioner firm, as is depicted from the record produced. He fell within the category of ''servant'' as contained in Section 215 of the Act The Petitioner failed to file objections within 30 days from November 6, 1969, the date of the receipt of notice, on his behalf by his servant. It cannot now take exception to the mode of service and say that it was not served upon it In view of this, the Petitioner filed the objections after a delay and those were rightly dismissed by the Administrator, vide order, Annexure ''D''. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders cannot be assailed on behalf of the Petitioner.

The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.