Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Others on 5 May, 2009
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13820 of 2006
Date of Decision: May 05, 2009
Vijay Kumar
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 12.1.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, and Order dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders are ex-facie illegal, in so much as, Order Annexure P-3 has assessed the rateable value of the property of the petitioner CWP No.13820 of 2006 [2] even beyond the value proposed in the show cause notice.
Learned counsel has further contended that the provisions of Section 93 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short, `the Act') have not been considered at all while assessing the rateable value of the property and therefore, the orders are illegal.
On the third count, learned counsel has argued that Orders, Annexure P-3 and P-6, are both non-speaking orders as the relevant issues raised or judgments referred to on behalf of the petitioner, have not been considered.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not been able to give any reasonable answer as to under what circumstances, the value proposed under the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) has been exceeded by the Joint Commissioner while considering the issue. Learned counsel has further not been able to satisfy the Court as to how the orders are speaking and considered orders passed after consideration of provisions of Section 93 of the Act.
I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the paperbook.
Annexure P-1 is a notice issued under Section 103 of the Act. Relevant portion of Section 103 reads as under:-
"103. Amendment of assessment list.- (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment CWP No.13820 of 2006 [3] list.-
xx xx xx xx xx xx
(d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or xx xx xx xx xx xx Provided that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given. (2) Before making any amendment under sub-
section (1), the Commissioner shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objections which may be made by such person."
Perusal of Annexure P-1 indicates that the authorities have considered that the annual rateable value of the property in 1982-83 was Rs.13,750/- but for the year 2000-01, annual rateable value is proposed to be revised as Rs.2,70,000/- due to the reason, "because there has been clear addition/alteration in the property" and "because assessment of commercial portion of property in self occupation". With these proposals, the petitioner was asked to file objections, if any, within 30 days.
Perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that the petitioner, indeed, filed objections on 4.1.2001. It has essentially been contended in the objections that the guiding principles and the formula for proposed annual rateable value, have not been disclosed which is essential as per law on the issue.
Under Order, Annexure P-3, without CWP No.13820 of 2006 [4] considering the provisions of Section 93 of the Act and the parameters laid thereunder, while saying that the record had been referred to and examined, annual rateable value of the property has been assessed @ Rs.3,24,000/- per annum with effect from 1.4.2000.
It is clearly evident that while the Municipal Corporation proposed vide show cause notice that annual rateable value of the property was Rs.2,70,000/-, the Joint Commissioner while dealing with the issue, has assessed the annual rateable value at a higher rate. The objections raised on behalf of the petitioner for assessing the rateable value below Rs.2,70,000/- have not been considered. The petitioner aggrieved by the order, filed an appeal alongwith written arguments, while taking various objections.
In the other impugned order, Annexure P-6, without assigning any reason and only after noticing the arguments, decision has been given in the following terms:-
"6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the record. The impugned order has been passed after considering the objections submitted by the appellant and also after affording the opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity. The appeal is thus frivolous and is dismissed."
Clearly, the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order without assigning any reason. It is the right of every individual to know the reasons for which his case CWP No.13820 of 2006 [5] has been accepted or rejected. No reasons having been given, Orders Annexure P-3 and P-6 are rendered illegal.
The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner also has force, in so much as, the provisions of Section 93 of the Act have not been considered at all while assessing the annual rateable value of the property which is the requirement of the law. I find that the annual rateable value proposed on behalf of the Corporation as Rs.2,70,000/- has not been accepted by the Joint Commissioner rather, it has been increased without assigning any reasons. The issue before the authorities was to assess the rateable value as proposed by the Municipal Corporation @ Rs.2,70,000/- or less, in view of the objection raised by the petitioner. Neither reasons have been assigned for not accepting the proposal of the Corporation nor the order deals with the objections raised by the petitioner. The order adversely affects the rights of the petitioner and therefore, it is imperative for the authorities to assign reasons.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-3 and P-6 are hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner to consider the issue in the
light of the observations made hereinabove and in view of the provisions of Section 93 of the Act. CWP No.13820 of 2006 [6] Parties would be heard and their contentions be considered while dealing with the matter afresh.
The parties would be required to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 3.6.2009.
(AJAI LAMBA)
May 05, 2009 JUDGE
avin