- (1.) Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that these writ petitions Nos. 3003 and 3056 of 1980 can be disposed of by a common order in view of the identity of facts and contentions raised therein. They are further agreed that for purposes of this judgment only the facts stated in the first petition need only be adverted to.
(2.) The petitioner concern completed the construction of its godowns (assessed as one unit) at Patiala on 30th July, 1977 for purposes of letting out the same to the Food Corporation of India for storage purposes. For purposes of assessment of house tax for the year 1977-78 (1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1978) on this property, the respondent-Municipal Committee, Patiala, issued a notice (Annexure R.3/1) on 30th November, 1977 proposing annual value of this property as Rs. 1,70,426/-. The petitioner filed objections (Annexure R.3/2) against the proposed value, but the same could not be decided till 14th December, 1978 when the assessment was actually finalised and a tax of Rs. 23,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. It deserves to be mentioned here that the petitioner filed a civil suit on 23rd March, 1978 (Annexure R.3/3) impugned notice issued to him and also obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondent-Committee from proceeding with the assessment of tax. This injunction was, however, vacated on a contest having been raised by the Municipal committee on 15th June, 1978 vide Annexure R.3/4. The suit was also ultimately dismissed on 17th August, 1978 under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as none of the parties was present on that date of hearing. After the vacation of the above noted temporary injunction and the dismissal of the suit, the Committee was able to finalise the assessment as already indicated on 14th December, 1978 vide order Annexure P.1. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against this assessment was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 19th March, 1980 vide order Annexure P.3. The petitioner now impugns these orders of assessment Annexure P.1 and P.3 on two grounds :- (i) the assessment has not been carried out in accordance with the principles land down by the Supreme Court in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another etc., 1980 LLR 169, and (ii) respondent-Committee could not impose the tax with retrospective effect i.e. prior to the date of assessment (14th December, 1978) in view of the provisions of section 66 of the Punjab Municipal Act (for short 'the Act').
(3.) Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the Municipal Committee besides controverting the above noted stand of the petitioner maintains that the petition is not maintainable for the reasons that the petitioner had failed in successfully impugning notice, Annexure R.3/1 and the order of the civil court dated 17th August, 1978 bars the filing of this petition. I, however, see no merit in the latter mentioned contention of Shri Harbhagwan Singh. What is now being impugned by the petitioner are the final assessment orders Annexures P1 and P3 which admittedly came into existence subsequent to the dismissal of the suit and obviously provided a fresh cause of action. Otherwise also, I am of the considered view that dismissal of the suit of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. for default of appearance does not in any way bar the filing of this petition on any principle or statutory provision.;