Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Municipal Committee and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the order Annexure P-3 passed by the House Tax Sub-Committee of the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, for levy of house-tax amounting to Rs. 25,562.25 and the dismissal of its appeal by the Additional deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, the petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation of India has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and for directing the respondents to make fresh assessment of the annual value of the building in which its officers are housed at Ferozepur.

Since the respondents have not chosen to appear in response to the notice issued by the Court and no return has been filed by them, we shall decide the writ petition on the assumption that the averments made in the writ petition are correct.

On 19.6.1995, the Municipal Committee issued notice to the petitioners for assessment of the house tax in respect of the building occupied by the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Ferozepur. The petitioners filed objections dated 10.7.1995 and pleaded that the proposed assessment should not be made and that annual letting value of the building should be assessed in accordance with Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

These objections were placed before the House Tax Sub Committee of the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, which passed the order Annexure P-3 and levied the tax amounting to Rs. 25,562.25.

The petitioner filed an appeal u/s 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act. After, issuing notice to the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur, the Additional Deputy Commissioner heard the arguments and directed the parties to file written arguments. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the petitioner on 22.1.1996. Thereafter the Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order Annexure P-6 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Although, the impugned orders have been challenged on various grounds, after having heard Mr. B.R. Mahajan, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. One of the facts of the principles of natural justice is that every quasi-judicial authority must pass speaking order. The requirement of law is that the orders passed by a quasi-judicial authority like respondent No. 2 must be supported by cogent reasons and if the superior Court finds that the quasi-judicial authority has not assigned reasons in support of its conclusions, then such an order is liable to be nullified. In this connection, we may refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, and The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, and a decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Testeels Ltd. Vs. N.M. Desai and Another, In these judgments, it has been repeatedly held that an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice in case it does not contain reasons.

A look at the order passed by the Appellate Authority shows that after taking cognizance of the facts and arguments advanced by the counsel/representatives of the parties, the Appellate Authority has rejected the points raised by the petitioner simply by saying that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is a detailed one. On its part, the Appellate Authority has not discussed the various objections raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal and the written arguments, nor has it assigned reasons for not accepting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In our opinion, it was the duty of the Appellate Authority to independently examine the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same by assigning good and sufficient reasons. Since that has not been done, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it.

For the above said reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-6 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, is declared illegal and it is quashed. The appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh after bearing the parties.