Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by Krishan Kumar and four others residents of the town of Batala in the District of Gurdaspur filed against the State of Punjab and Municipal Committee, Batala, respectively, impleaded as Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 impugning the validity of notification dated June 17, 1970; issued under Sub -section (3) of Section 62 -A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under: The idea of levy of tax upon owners of buildings and lands situate within the municipal limits of the town of Batala has been pending since 1954. Respondent No. 2 has been passing resolutions and communicating to Respondent No. 1 that it was not expedient that such tax be imposed on the owners of building and lands within the municipal limits of Batala as the residents of the town, were mostly industrialists and ran small scale industries and the town being a town near the border between Pakistan and India, the levy of tax will make them not to stick to the town of Batala but make them quit that town. By letter dated September 20, 1965, Respondent No. 1, directed Respondent No. 2 to pass a resolution under Section 61 of the Act to impose that tax. On October 18, 1965, Respondent No. 2 resolved that in view of the peculiar situation of the border town of Batala and the conditions then prevailing as a result of Indo -Pakistan hostilities, it would not be proper to burden the owners of buildings and lands, of that town with tax under Section 61 of the Act. It was further mentioned in that resolution that the small -scale industry of the town will receive a big jolt or set -back if the Committee resolved to impose tax upon the owners of buildings and lands. At the end, the Committee said that at that juncture of time, impost of tax would not be called for, In the Punjab Government Gazette, dated December 23, 1965, Respondent No. 1 published a notification addressed in the name of Respondent No. 2 in exercise of its powers under Sub -section (1) of Section 62 -A of the Act calling upon Respondent No. 2 to take steps for imposition of tax on the annual value of buildings and lands situate within the municipal limits of Batala as provided under Section 61 of the Act. In a resolution passed on March 22, 1966, Respondent No. 2 reiterated its earlier resolution dated October 18, 1965, and stated that considering the income and expenditure of Respondent No. 2, there was no justification for the impost of that tax. On receipt of a further communication from Respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps for action under Section 61 of the Act for levy of the above said tax, Respondent No. 2 passed another resolution on March 17, 1967 asserting that the residents of the town of Batala were resentful against the heavy burden of various taxes already imposed and that if the tax as proposed by Respondent No. 1 is imposed upon the residents of the town, the business community would shift from the town and settle elsewhere and that thereby the local industry will seriously suffer. Taking into consideration the necessity of development of the town, the existing sanitary conditions and other amenities of the residents of the town and finding that Respondent No. 2 was not paying heed to the repeated attempts made by Respondent No. 1 to take action under Section 61 of the Act, Respondent No. 1 issued notification dated June 17, 1970, under Sub -section (3) of Section 62 -A of the Act imposing tax on buildings and lands situate within the municipal limits of Batala. It was provided in that notification that it will be operative as if it were a resolution duly passed by Respondent No. 2 and as if the proposal for imposition of tax had been sanctioned in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 62 of the Act. Apart from the stand taken by the Petitioners on the basis of the resolution passed by Respondent No. 2, it has been pleaded on behalf of the Petitioners that by virtue of notification dated June 17, 1970, the procedure for imposition of tax as devised by Section 62 by giving notice to the owners of buildings and lands and determining the liability of the tax after hearing their objections could not be dispensed with by Respondent No. 1 as has been done by the notification impugned on their behalf.
(3.) IN reply, Respondent No. 1 has controverted the allegations of the Petitioners as incorporated in the writ petition and pleaded on the basis of the circumstances alluded to above that there was every justification for the impost of the said tax and that it was not necessary to comply with the procedure for imposition of tax contained in Section 62 of the Act, Respondent No. 1 has contended that the facts and circumstances pertaining to the impost of tax fully justified the action taken by Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 had ample power to dispense with the necessity of procedure to be followed for impost of tax as laid down in Section 62 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 in its return did not contest any of the grounds raised in the writ petition on behalf of the Petitioners but dittoed their petition. Shri D.N. Awasthy appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has raised the following two issues: (1) that the procedure as contemplated by Section 62 of the Act could not be done away with by the impugned notification and (2) that in any case the notification is discriminatory and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.;