G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of by one order because the question of law which arises for determination by the Court is common to all these cases.
(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the writ petitions are that vide notification dated 30.11.1990 (published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 3.12.1990) issued under Section 71(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act'), the President of India (at that time, Punjab was under President Rule) exempted 'Kapas' (Raw Cotton), Narma and Oil Seeds from payment of octroi with immediate effect. By another notification of the same date issued under Section 62-A of the Act, the President of India directed all the Municipal Committee/Councils in the State to impose Urban Development Cess on the sale and purchase of Kapas (Raw Cotton), Narma and Oil Seeds at the rate of 0.25% advalorem with immediate effect. The second notification was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.8.1991. The operative part of that order reads as under : "For the reasons recorded above, writ petitions filed by the petitioners must succeed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the notification Annexure P.2 is set aside. Consequent thereto, letters Annexures P-3 and P-4 are also quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of tax collected by them alongwith 12% interest within one month from today." The respondents challenged the High Court's order by filing petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court. While granting leave on 12.11.1991, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stayed the operation of order dated 19.8.1991. The Civil appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25.11.1997 with the direction for refund of the amount collected from the writ petitioners with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of collection till its payment. After one year and about ten months from the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners served notices dated 13.9.1999 upon the State Government and the Executive Officers of the concerned municipalities claiming refund of the Development Cess paid by them pursuant to the notification dated 30.11.1990. They also demanded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the reply sent by their Advocate, the Municipal Committees/Councils took the stand that the petitioners are not entitled to seek refund because : (i) they were not parties in the writ petitions and appeals ; (ii) they had transferred the burden of Development Cess to the buyers; (iii) the amount collected from them had already been utilised for development works; and (iv) the claim for refund was time barred.
(3.) IN these petitions, the petitioner have prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Development Cess collected between 1.12.1990 and 25.12.1997 on the ground that the levy thereof has been declared void. They have averred that in view of the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the respondents are under a legal as well as constitutional obligation to refund the amount of Development Cess illegally collected from them.;