YADAV, J. - (1.) THE present two writ petitions have been preferred against a composite order dated 30. 7. 98, passed by District Collector, Ajmer, in Municipal Appeals Nos. 51/98 and 52/98, respectively, in exercise of his power, under Section 139 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959), with common prayers to quash the aforesaid order in both the appeals and the notices dated 26. 2. 98, issued by the Municipal Council, Ajmer, demanding arrears of house tax from 01. 1. 86 to 1996-97 and refund of Rs. 19,956. 20 in Writ Petition No. 5487/98 and Rs. 20,221. 25, in Writ Petition No. 5488/98, with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, from the date of deposit, till date of payment.
(2.) IN both these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, these two petitions can be disposed of by a composite order, treating Writ Petition No. 5488/98 as a leading case. In both these cases, the points for determination gravitate and center round legal issues, which can be adjudicated, without delineating the factual matrix, yet, for better and deeper understanding of the controversy between the parties, a short resume of facts would be necessary. The details of the facts, averred in the writ petitions, counter and rejoinder affidavits, exchanged between the parties, are not relevant, and hence, skipped. It is to be noticed that the Municipal Council, Ajmer, by its notice dated 26. 2. 98, raised the amount of house tax, for the assessment year 1997-98, to Rs. 2,227/- and further made a claim for arrears, from the petitioners, for the period commencing from 01. 1. 86 to 1996-97. Aggrieved against the aforesaid demand, both the petitioners filed appeals before District Collector, Ajmer, in respect of premises, bearing Municipal No. 225a/21, and in respect of premises, bearing Municipal No. 225/21, which were registered as Municipal Appeals Nos. 51/98 and 52/98. It is revealed from perusal of the materials available on record that in both the appeals, the case of the petitioners, was that in each year, in between 1st April to 31. 03. authentication of the assessment list was continuously made by the Municipal Council, in respect of the premises in question for official years, namely, 1986 to 1997 and tax had already been paid by the petitioners in pursuant to demand notices, yet, now, recovery of arrears of house tax from them, with retrospective effect, is being made, which is per se illegal. It was put forth by the petitioners before District Collector, Ajmer, that before levying increased house tax, proposal must be sent to the owner of the house; his objections should be heard and after investigation, the assessment list of each official year should be altered and authenticated, which would create the increased liability of tax against the tax payer. The averments made in the writ petitions, were denied and it was averred in the return that the Municipal Council, Ajmer, came to learn that apart from the premises, which were under the occupation of Survey of India, as tenant, the petitioner had let out a cabin, of size 10x10 and an open hall, of size 10x12, with effect from 01. 4. 96. The relevant rents, which were being received by the petitioners, from the Survey of India and from the second tenant, namely, Tower Hexacom India Ltd. , had never been intimated by the petitioners, on the rental value of which, tax was leviable.
(3.) THE facts, averred in the return, filed by the Municipal Council, Ajmer, were denied in the rejoinder, filed by the petitioners, and it was highlighted that the petitioners were not under legal obligation, to inform the Municipal Corporation, with regard to increase in rental value of the houses. It is further averred in the rejoinders, filed by both the petitioners that the Municipal Council, Ajmer, was not justified in reopening assessment of the previous official years. THE existence of office of Hexacom India Ltd. , in the house of the petitioners, as narrated by the respondents, was denied in the rejoinder. A close scrutiny of the order impugned, passed by District Collector, Ajmer, reveals that he has approached the controversy between the parties, on administrative mind-set, ignoring the mandatory provisions, envisaged under Sections 115 to 120 of Act No. 38 of 1959; Sections 6 and 8 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1950") and has also ignored the mandatory provisions of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, which read thus:- "141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. 142. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court - All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. " I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ;