Central Warehousing Corporation vs The Municipal Committee and Others

Swatantar Kumar, J.—Admit.

Pleadings of the parties are complete. By consent, writ petition placed on board and called out for hearing.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated July 27, 1994, Annexure P-6, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rup Nagar, in case

No. 20/Municipal Act. Mr. Setia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that the

Deputy Commissioner, erroneously, held that the appeal is not maintainable for want of deposit of house tax. The order dismissing the appeal as

not maintainable is illegal. He drew our attention to the receipt dated May 5, 1993, Annexure P-3 showing the payment of the house tax. It is in

these circumstances that Mr. Setia, urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, for

disposal in accordance with law. Mr. Suneja, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, however countered the argument and

contended that the Deputy Commissioner has also considered other arguments of the petitioner on merit and dismissed the appeal for the reasons

recorded therein.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated July 27, 1994, Annexure P-6 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rup

Nagar.

It is true that in some paragraphs of the impugned order, there is reference to the arguments, but in our opinion, the approach of the learned

Deputy Commissioner, appears to be casual in view of the fact that he was convinced that the petitioner had not deposited the house-tax and,

therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The whole approach of the learned Deputy Commissioner, does not seem to be correct as he ought to

have considered and discussed the various arguments raised by the petitioner before him.

In the result, the impugned order dated July 27, 1994, Annexure P-6 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rup Nagar, is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Rup Nagar, to consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits. It is now the

admitted position that the petitioner has deposited the house tax in time.

The writ petition is partly allowed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.