H.P.UNIVERSITY Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation between the parties. In, C.W.P. No. 598 of 2005, titled : H.P.U. Summer Hill v. M.C. Shimla, decided on 11.6.2007, the petitioner herein had challenged the assessment made by the respondent for taxing its building. A number of grounds were urged by the University in support of its contention that the assessment so made was not correct. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court ordered:

(2.) The petitioner has again approached this Court alleging that the Municipal Corporation has not complied with this order and more especially the precedent of the Supreme Court cited before this Court in the previous petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the principles of assessment have been laid down by the Supreme Court in three judgments, namely; Government Servant Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1998 6 SCC 381, Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2000 4 SCC 577 and India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Anr., 2002 3 SCC 388.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the assessment orders passed are self-speaking. Annexures R-1 and R-2 are orders of assessment passed by the respondent after remand of the case. These two orders are passed on the consent of the petitioner. Hence, we do not intend to take them up for consideration. There are other orders on record, namely, Annexures R-3 to R-39, which have been challenged in this petition. These orders are stereotyped. While making the assessment, the only reason given for rejecting the case of the petitioner herein is in the following word in Annexure R-3: