Municipal Committee, Rupnagar vs Puran Chand Gulshan Kumar and ors.

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Municipal Committee Roop Nagar moved Executive Magistrate Roop Nagar for recovery of certain sum as arrears of taxes from the respondent. Notice was issued to the respondent who raised various objections before the Magistrate, one of which related to the competence of the Committee to impose penalty. The Executive Magistrate after hearing the objections came to the conclusion that the demand made by the Committee was not justified and rejected the same. Against that order of the Executive Magistrate, Municipal Committee Roop Nagar preferred a revision before Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar. That revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 15.1.1987. He held that the revision was not competent and also after discussing merits, he observed that there was no merit in the revision petition besides being not maintainable. Now the Municipal Committee through this petition has tried to invoke inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Second revision is clearly barred under subsection (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it has been held in Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka JT 1987(4) S.C. 637 that the statutory bar to second revision cannot be overcome by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent; powers under section 482. In the light thereof, Municipal Committee Roop Nagar cannot assert on merits in this Court. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Executive Magistrate Ropar had no authority to go into the question of penalty and his Court cannot be considered to be inferior Court for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This to my mind, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner after having joined the enquiry by the Magistrate with regard to the competence of the Committee to impose penalty and having itself preferred revision before Sessions Judge Roop Nagar against the order of the Executive Magistrate. It was only at the instance of the Committee that Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar had to discuss the merits of the case irrespective of the fact that he came to the conclusion that revision petition was not maintainable. After having done all that, I do not think if a case to invoke inherent powers at the instance of the petitioner on that score is made out. Question of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would have arisen if the Committee had moved this Court against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate as persona designata and had itself not chosen the forum of Sessions Judge for preferring revision petition against that order. Thus from whatever angle this case may be viewed, present petition deserves dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed.