- (1.)Batch of writ petitions were filed which have been dismissed by a common impugned order dated 25.6.2004. Out of the five appeals in hand, four of them are arising out of the common order dated 25.6.2004 whereas L.P.A. No. 292 of 2008 is arising against the impugned order dated 2.7.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6963 of 2002 in terms of the aforesaid common order dated 25.6.2004. Since, common questions of law are involved in all these appeals, with the consent of the parties these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
FACTS:

(i) L.P.A. No. 610 of 2004

The appellant was in possession of the premises situated over Holding No. 19 in Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipality, jointly with his two brothers, having an area of approximately 12 x 80 ft. It was stated by the appellant that he had been paying the holding tax since quite long on the basis of the last quarterly assessment of holding tax made in the year 1993-94 to the tune of Rs. 46.61 per quarter before he was asked to pay a revised valuation of holding tax fixed at Rs. 968.25 on quarterly basis vide a notice under Section 115 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (in short, the Act). It was also stated that the appellant filed an application under Section 116 of the Act within one month of receipt of demand notice under Section 115 of the Act for payment of enhanced holding tax of Rs. 968.25 praying therein for rectification of unreasonable enhancement of holding tax of their holdings. It has been alleged that when the respondent-authorities failed to take any decision in the matter, the writ application [W.P. (C) No. 1772/2003] was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 25.6.2004 by the learned Single Judge.

(ii) L.P.A. No. 645 of 2004

The appellant Shanti Chourasia @ Shanti Devi stated that she was in the possession of the premises situated over Holding No. 61 (earlier 44) in Ward No. 6 of Deoghar Municipality having an area of approximately 51 x 48 ft. having ground and two floors. It was further stated that she had been paying her holding tax since quite long on the basis of last quarterly assessment of holding tax made in the year 1993-94 to the tune of Rs. 76.50 only before she was asked to receive a notice under Section 115 of the Act asking to pay a revised valuation of holding tax fixed at Rs. 600/- on quarterly basis. It was further stated that the appellant filed an application under Section 116 of the Act within a month of the receipt of demand notice under Section 115 of the Act for the payment of enhanced holding tax of Rs. 600/- in the office of respondent on 25.5.1998. It has been alleged that the respondent authorities did not take any decision over the application filed by the appellant or deliberately chose not to supply the certified copy of any such decision of the authorities on the application for review for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 1762 of 2003] which was dismissed.

(iii) L.P.A. No. 646 of 2004

The appellant Dwarika Prasad Chaurasia was in the possession of two different premises in question firstly, situated over Holding No. 71 in Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipality, having an area of approximately 11 x 90 ft. added to 12 x 30 ft i.e. ground floor and a hall on the first floor and the another premises situated over Holding No. 72 in Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipality having an area of approximately 11 x 90 ft. added to 18 x 36 ft. i.e. ground floor and a hall on the first floor. It was further stated that the appellant had been paying the holding tax since quite long on the basis of last quarterly assessment of holding tax made in the year 1993-94 which came to Rs. 38.25 and Rs. 52.90 respectively on quarterly basis till the impugned notice of demand was raised under Section 115 of the Act to pay revised valuation of holding tax fixed at Rs. 1162.50 each on quarterly basis for both the premises. It was further stated by the appellant that an application was filed under Section 116 of the Act within one month of receipt of demand notice under Section 115 for the payment of the enhance holding tax of Rs. 1162.50 on 5.4.1999. It has further been alleged that the respondents failed to take any decision in the matter till date and have deliberately flouted their statutory obligations subjecting the petitioner to the vagaries of facing the penalty arising out of the non-payment of wholly arbitrarily assessed/fixed holding tax. It has also been stated that the appellant was served notice for the payment of arrears of the holding tax from the years 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 for an amount of Rs. 23,250/- and Rs. 22,282/- for the two premises respectively. Therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 1774 of. 2003] which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(iv) L.P.A. No. 647 of 2004

The appellant Mira Devi Chaurasia claimed that she was in possession of the premises situated over Holding No. 70, Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipality having an area of approximately 24 x 30 ft. It was stated that she was religiously and diligently paying the holding tax fixed at quarterly valuation of Rs. 47.85 before the demand of revised valuation of holding tax fixed at Rs. 775/- on quarterly basis. It has further been alleged that an application under Section 116 of the Act was filed within one month of the receipt of demand, of the revised holding tax of Rs. 775/- under Section 115 of the Act on 5.4.1999 before the Respondent No. 2 praying therein for rectification of unreasonable enhancement of the holding tax and it has been alleged that the respondent authorities failed to take any decision in the matter till date and have deliberately flouted their statutory obligations subjecting the appellant to the vagaries of facing difficulties arising out of non-payment of wholly arbitrarily assessed/fixed holding tax. Therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 1775 of 2003] which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(v) L.P.A. No. 292 of 2008

The appellant Taruna Dutta Dwary stated that she was in the possession of the premises situated over Holding No. 95 in Ward No. 4 of Deoghar Municipality. It was further stated that the Holding in question had been reassessed for the year 1994-95 and the holding tax was enhanced and determined as Rs. 13.30 quarterly and again the respondent issued notice dated 1.4.1998 whereby the holding tax of the aforesaid holding had again been reassessed and enhanced as Rs. 176.25 which is said to be 15 times more than the last assessment which is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary assessment without any rational basis, it was further stated that the appellant filed an objection application on 23.5.1998 against the demand notice dated 1.4.1998 for the payment of enhanced holding tax of Rs. 176.25 on quarterly basis before the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of this objection it has been alleged that the Appeal Committee issued so many dates to the appellant to appear on 20.11.2000 but on that day the quorum of Appeal Committee was not completed, hence the matter was taken up by the Appeal Committee but the respondent said that a general order may be passed but no order had been passed or communicated to the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 6963 of 2002] which was dismissed by order dated 2.7.2008 by the learned Single Judge.

(2.)From the above facts, it appears that the common grievance of the appellants is that the concerned Deoghar Municipal Authorities have taken arbitrary decision with respect to the re-assessment of holding tax and further neither any decision was taken on the objection petition filed by the aggrieved appellants nor certified copy, if decision taken, was supplied to the appellants. In nutshell, the grounds of challenge to the impugned order are virtually similar inasmuch as, they relate to identical issues with regard to re-assessment and enhancement of holding tax by the same Municipality. The crux of the grounds raised by the appellants are as under:--
* Deoghar Municipality has arbitrarily enhanced the Municipal Tax which is said to have been confirmed by the Appellate Committee in some of the cases.

* The assessment of the Municipal Tax/holding tax is excessive, unreasonable and unjustified.

* The Municipal Authorities/respondents while increasing the tax have flouted the procedure laid down in the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922.

* The Municipal Authorities/respondents acted discriminately in a mala fide manner adopting the policy of pick and choose in the fixation of holding tax.

(3.)For the sake of convenience, the details of the individual case of the appellants are given below in the tabular form:--
SUBMISSIONS: