Jharkhand High Court
M/S Eastern Coalfields Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 December, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003
M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Accounts Officer, S.P.
Mines, Chitra namely, Ashok Kumar Baliase, son of Sri Mahaeshwar
Prasad Baliase, Resident of Officer's Resident, New Colony, S.P.
Mines Chitra, Post Office-Chitra [Via-Jamtara], Police Station: Chitra,
District Deoghar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
3. The Special Officer, Notified Area Committee, Jamtara, District:
Jamtara
4. Chairman Notified Are Committee-Cum-Subdivisional Officer,
Jamtara, Police Station-Jamtara, Sub Division Jamtara, District
Jamtara ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006
General Manager of SP Mines, Eastern Coalfields Limited [a
Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the
Companies Act] namely Narendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Kedar
Singh, R/o Old Colony, SP Mines, Chitra, Post Office-Chitra [via-
Jamtara], P.S. Chitra District Deoghar having its office at SP Mines,
Post Office-Chitra [Via-Jamtara], Police Station Chitra, District
Deoghar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
3. The Special Officer, Jamtara Notified Area Committee, District
:Jamtara
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara-cum-Chairman, Jamtara Notified
Area Committee-cum-Certificate Officer, Post Office Jamtara,
Police Station: Jamtara, District Jamtara
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009
M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited [a Government Company within
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act] through its Senior
Accounts Officer, S.P. Mines Area of ECL at Chitra, Deoghar
namely, Ashok Kumar Baliase, son of Sri Maheshwar Prasad Baliase,
Resident of Quarter No. C-08/18, New Colony, Chitra, Post Office-
Chitra [Via- Jamtara], Police Station: Chitra, District Deoghar,
Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
At-Jamtara, Post Office and Police Station-Jamtara, District
Jamtara, Jharkhand
2. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Jamtara Notified Area
Committee, At Jamtara Post Office and Police Station: Jamtara
District Jamtara, Jharkhand
3. Chairman, Jamtara Notified Are Committee; At Jamtara, Post
Office and Police Station: Jamtara, District : Jamtara, Jharkhand
4. Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the Resp. : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Jamtara Nagar Panchayat
For the Resp. State : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A. II
( In W.P. (C) No. 1088/2006)
: Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
(In W.P. (C) 5149.2003 and in
W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009)
—
22/17.12.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
“For quashing of the Order dated 11.03.2003 passed in Rev.
Misc. Petition Case No.1 of 2003, by the Learned Deputy
Commissioner, Deoghar whereby and whereunder he has
been pleased to dismiss the Rev. Misc. Petition Case No. 1 of
2003 on the ground that that the Petitioner has already filed
representation before the Assessing Officer [Notified Area
Committee Cum Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara] to review
the illegal / abnormal assessment of rent tax for the Railway
siding at Jamtara by the Notified Area Committee of Jamtara
and if the Petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by it
than he may approach him but the Notified Area Committee
Cum Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara has not disposed of the
representation of the Petitioner and has taken coercive steps
for realisation of the same.
(b) To quash the illegal & abnormal assessment made by the
Respondent No 3 & 4 vide Notice No. 07 dated 24.01.2002
[Annexure-6) with respect to the Railway siding of the
Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(c) To quash the illegal demand as made by the Respondent
No.3 & 4 vide Annexures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25 against the illegal assessment made
by them in respect to the Railway riding of the Petitioner,
which has commenced its business since 1997.
AND
2
Further be pleased to grant such other relief to the petitioner
to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006 has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
“(a). For quashing of the Demand Letter No.495 dated
11.12.2004 [Annexure-26] issued by Respondent No. 3
whereby and where under he has been pleased to demand
the sub-judice amount of Rs.7,97,647/- i.e. the rest 50%
out of the alleged arbitrary assessed amount of Notified
Area Commercial Holding Tax for the Jamtara Railway
siding for the period 1996-97 to 2002-03 for which this
Hon’ble Court has directed the Respondents to take no
coercive steps as against the Petitioner vide its order dated
18.10.2003 passed in WP [C] No. 5149 of 2003
[Annexure-25] and further demanded an amount of
Rs.2,98,922/- for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05 for the
said Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner [i.e. Annual
Tax of Rs.1,49,461/- in respect to House Tax, Lighting Tax
and Commercial Tax), which is similarly excessive and
arbitrary having abnormally assessed by Respondent No.3
& 4.
(b) To quash the illegal Demand Letter No 411 dated
11.08.2005 [Annexure-27] wherein the Respondents No.3
has repeated his demand of Rs.7,97,647/- i.e. the rest 50%
out of the alleged arbitrary assessed amount of Notified
Area Commercial Holding Tax for the Jamtara Railway
siding for the period 1996-97 to 2002-03 for which this
Hon’ble Court has directed the Respondents to take no
coercive steps as against the Petitioner vide its order dated
18.10.2003 passed in WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 [Annexure-
25] and further demanded an amount of Rs.4,48,383/- for
the period 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 for the said
Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner [ie. Annual Tax
of Rs.1,49,461/- in respect to House Tax, Lighting Tax and
Commercial Tax), which is similarly excessive and
arbitrary having abnormally assessed by Respondent No.3
& 4.
4. W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009 has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
” To quash the illegal, baseless, arbitrary, exorbitant
demand as made by the Respondent No.2 vide Demand
Notice No. 508 dated 22.06.2007 [Annexures-29] and its
reminder Demand Notice No.172 dated 14.03.2008
[Annexures-31] towards the Annual Municipal Tax [ie.
House Tax, Commercial Tax and Lighting Tax) in respect to
Jamtara Railway Siding of the Petitioner, under Jamtara
Notified Area that is not in existence, for the period 2006-073
& 2007-08, @Rs.1,49,461/- for each year, including the
demand of the balance amount of annual municipal tax for
the period 1992-93 to 2002-03 and period 2003-04 to 2005-
06 that is subject matter of WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 and WP
[C] No.1088 of 2006 respectively and recovery of which has
been stayed by the Hon’ble Court and that was calculated on
basis of the illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, exorbitant,
ex-parte assessment made by Special Officer of the Jamtara
Notified Area Committee [Respondent No.2] in respect to the
Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner, which has
admittedly acquired by the State and handed over to the
Petitioner in the year 1992 and the Petitioner commenced its
first business on 08.01.1997.
(ii) Further to quash the illegal, baseless, arbitrary,
exorbitant demand as made by the Respondent No.2 vide
Demand Notice No.278 dated 20.04.2009 [Annexures-33]
towards the Annual Municipal Tax [ie. House Tax,
Commercial Tax and Lighting Tax) in respect to Jamtara
Railway Siding of the Petitioner, under Jantara Notified Area
that is not in existence, for the period 2006-07, 2007-08 &
2008-09 @ Rs.1,49,461/- for each year, including the
demand of the balance amount of annual municipal tax for
the period 1992-93 to 2002-03 and period 2003-04 to 2005-
06 that is subject matter of WP [C] No.5149 of 2003 and WP
[C] No.1088 of 2006 respectively and recovery of which has
been stayed by the Hon’ble Court and that was calculated on
basis of the illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, exorbitant,
ex-parte assessment made by Special Officer of the Jamtara
Notified Area Committee [Respondent No.2] in respect to the
Jamtara Railway siding of the Petitioner, which has
admittedly been acquired by the State Government and
handed over to the Petitioner in the year 1992 and the
Petitioner commenced its first business on 08.01.1997.”
Arguments of the Petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition
being W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003 is relating to the period 1992-93 to
2002-03 whereas writ petition W.P. (C) No. 1088 of 2006 is relating
to the period 2003-04 and 2005-06 and W.P. (C) No. 4503 of 2009 is
relating to the period 2006-07 to 2008-09.
6. The arguments have been advanced primarily from the records
of W.P. (C) No. 5149 of 2003.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
36.03 acres of vacant land was acquired for construction of Railway
siding under Land Acquisition Act vide Land Acquisition Case No. 5
of 1986 and Case No. 6 of 1986-87 corresponding to Notification No.
4
1861 and 1862 both dated 27.09.1991 and it is the specific case of the
petitioner that the same was handed over to the petitioner on
September 1992.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that a railway siding was
constructed sometimes in the year 1996, 1997 and 1998 along with
certain structure to facilitate the smooth functioning of the
siding/depot for transportation of coal to the core sector of the
government. It is further the case of the petitioner that railway siding
in question of the S.P. Mines, Chitra is situated within Mouza
Ghanghara No. 6 and Mouza Baiba no. 8, Jamtara Ward No. 3 of the
Notified Area Committee Jamtara and at that point of time the holding
number was allotted to the aforesaid area being holding no. 284 to the
structure constructed at the railway siding at Jamtara by the petitioner.
9. It is further case that the respondent never used to demand any
sort of tax/charges from the petitioner with respect to railway siding in
question. However, a notice no. 7 dated 24.01.2002 (Annexure-6) was
issued for the assessment of annual tax under Section 115(2) of Bihar
and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 and the tax was sought to be levied
with retrospective effect from 1985-86 house tax @ Rs. 34,575 and
lighting tax @ Rs.1800.
10. The grievance of the petitioner is that the assessment was ex-
parte and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It was their
further grievance that under no circumstance, the amount could be
assessed against the petitioner from 1985-86 in view of the aforesaid
facts.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the notice
of demand was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation
provided under Section 123 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act.
Section 123 of the Act is quoted as under:-
“123. Notice of demand to be presented-(1) Within
fourteen days of the first day of the quarter, the
Commissioners shall notify by public proclamation, or in
such manner as they may consider suitable, the date on
which an instalment of the tax becomes due.
(2) If the sum due on account of any tax is not paid within
fourteen days from the date on which it becomes due, the5
Commissioners shall cause to be served on the person
liable to pay the same a notice in the prescribed form:
Provided that-
(a) no notice shall be served more than six months after
any sum has become due; and
(b) no charge shall be made in respect of the service of
such notice.
(3) Such notice shall be signed by the Chairman or an
officer authorized in that behalf, and shall be served by a
person authorized to receive payment.”
12. Further grievance of the petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 10
questioning the jurisdiction of the authority by stating that the notice
could not be issued when the present Notified Committee of Jamatara
was not in existence and at present there is no elected Ward
Commissioner for a long time. It was also submitted that the Sub
Divisional Officer who is Ex-officio Acting Chairman of the Notified
Committee of Jamtara has no proprietary, competence and jurisdiction
to assess tax and issue such notice and as such the entire action was
void and nullity in the eyes of law.
13. It was their further case that the petitioner had filed their
representation but no order was being passed. Under such
circumstances they had moved the Deputy Commissioner in RMP No.
1 of 2002-03 who disposed of the matter vide order dated 11.03.2003
by observing that a representation was pending before the Notified
Area Committee.
14. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the petitioner
approached the Notified Area Committee and without hearing the
petitioner the order was passed which is contained in Annexure-11
dated 19.06.2002 to the writ petition in which a few more taxes were
also added. The learned counsel has submitted that thereafter revised
demand was issued vide Annexure-25 dated 05.09.2003. The learned
counsel submits that the authorities have been issuing the orders
without granting opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel submits
that revised demand dated 05.09.2003 and other orders are also
challenged before this court. He has also referred to supplementary
affidavit while raising a grievance that the representation of the
petitioner was not disposed of after granting any opportunity of
6
hearing and specific averment has been made in the supplementary
affidavit that Notified Area Committee was no longer in existence in
view of Ordinance No. 13 of 1954 introduced w.e.f. 30.05.1994.
15. The learned counsel has also submitted that Certificate case was
also filed for realization of dues by the same officer which is apparent
from Annexure-21,22 and 23. The learned counsel has also submitted
that the petitioner has already deposited certain amount pursuant to the
order dated 18.10.2003. Vide order dated 18.10.2003 it was observed
that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the assessed amount within one
month the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the
petitioner.
16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Dwarika Nath Prasad versus State of Bihar reported in
1999 (3) PLJR 718. Equivalent is 1999 SCC Online Patna 854 and
has submitted that after the 74th amendment of the Constitution of
India, Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance 1994 was introduced
w.e.f. 30.05.1994 and provision of Section 388 was deleted from the
statute and therefore the Notified Area Committee ceased to exist and
consequently no proceeding of whatsoever nature could have been
initiated to recover any amount from the petitioner by the Authority
under the Notified Area Committee. He has also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court
reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 736 (Ram Naresh Singh versus The State
of Bihar and Ors.) and has submitted that the Division Bench has also
taken note of the judgment passed in the case of Dwarika Nath
Prasad versus State of Bihar (supra) and has observed that the Sub
Divisional Officer, in the capacity of Chairman of Notified Area
Committee, could not have settled the piece of land as Taxi stand and
prescribe for collection of tax. The learned counsel submits that the
said judgment was passed in view of the 74th Constitutional
amendment followed by deletion of Section 388 of the Bihar and
Orissa Municipal Act.
7
17. However, during the course of arguments from the writ petition
it is not clear as to since when the Notified Area Committee, Jamtara
was in existence, whether it was in existence prior to coming into
force of the 74th Constitutional Amendment followed by Bihar
amendment i.e. 30.05.1994 or it was constituted thereafter. This
assumes importance in view of the fact that in the judgment of
Dwarika Nath Prasad (supra) the concerned Notified Area
Committee was notified by the state government after coming into
force of 74th Constitution Amendment and also after Bihar Municipal
Ordinance Amendment 1994 which was introduced w.e.f. 30.05.1994
and the connected notification with respect to concerned Notified Area
Committee was dated 14.07.1994/19.07.1994.
Arguments of the Respondent
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
petitioner has not complied the provisions of Section 186 of Bihar and
Orissa Municipal Act at any point of time and no notice was given to
the Notified Area Committee regarding erection or construction of the
building and regarding commencement of commercial transaction in
terms of Section 186 and Section 150-A of Bihar and Orissa
Municipal Act. Section 150-A and 186 are quoted as under:-
“150A- Tax on profession, trades, callings and
employments-When it has been determined that a tax
shall be imposed on professions, trades, callings and
employments, every person who exercise within the
municipality, either by himself or by an agent or
representative, any of the professions, trades, callings or
employments specified in the Fourth Schedule and who
is liable to pay such tax, shall take out a half-yearly
licence and pay the tax assessed on him in pursuance of
clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 82:
Provided that such tax shall be imposed on the
income accrued within the municipality during the year
next preceding the year for which the tax is imposed;
Provided further that nothing in this section shall be
deemed to apply to any person who exercises any such
profession, trade, callings or holds any employment
within the municipality and whose taxable income does
not exceed fifteen hundred rupees per mensem or the
value of whose place of business does not exceed ten
rupees per mensem or whose income from employment8
does not exceed twenty-four hundred rupees per
annum;
Provided also that any person is able to pay the tax
under this section may, if he so desire, on application to
the Commissioners, take out a yearly licence on
payment of the full amount of the tax due for the whole
year:
Provided also that the grant of such a license shall not
be deemed to affect the liability of the licensee to take
out a licence under any other section of this Act:”
186. Notice of intention to erect building or make well-
(1) A person shall give notice to the Commissioners
before beginning, within the limits of the municipality.
(a) to erect a new building or new part of building; or
(b) to erect, or make a material alteration in a building;
or
(c) to make or enlarge a well.
(2) The Commissioner may by a bye-law exempt any class
of buildings or wells within the whole or any part of the
municipality from the provisions of sub-section (1).
(3) An alteration in a building, shall for the purposes of
this Chapter and of any bye-laws, be deemed to be
material if it:-
(a) affects or is likely to affect prejudicially the stability
or safety of the building or the condition of the building
in respect of drainage, ventilation, sanitation or
hygiene; or
(b) increases or diminishes the height, or area covered
by, or cubical capacity or the building or reduces the
cubical capacity of any room in the building below the
minimum prescribed in any bye law; or
(c) converts into a place for human habitation a
building or part of a building originally constructed for
purposes; or
(d) is an alteration declared by a bye-law made in this
behalf to be a material alteration.”
19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
while opposing the prayer has submitted that the taxes which were
imposed prior to coming into force of Bihar Municipal Amendment
Ordinance 1994 [made effective from 30.05.1994] was realizable and
the Notified Area Committee which was in existence on 30.05.1994
continued to operate by virtue of section 390 (C) of Bihar Municipal
Act, 1922. He has submitted that merely by virtue of the aforesaid
Bihar amendment made effective from 30.05.1994, the liability
created under the then existing law is not wiped out.
9
20. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel
has not been able to give any date and also could not clarify the fact
from the records as to when the Notified Area Committee, Jamatara
was created. Thus, neither in the writ petition nor in the counter
affidavit this fact has been placed on record.
21. The learned counsel has further submitted that by virtue of the
transitional provision, the grievance of the petitioner in connection
with quantification of the taxes can be taken care of by the Executive
Officer Jamtara Nagar Panchayat as the Nagar Panchayat has been
constituted by virtue of Notification dated 06.02.2006. The learned
counsel has also submitted that connected notification creating Nagar
Panchayat has been placed on record in the counter affidavit dated
03.09.2012 which is at Annexure-A. The learned counsel has
submitted that in the batch of writ petitions certain period is post
06.02.2006. The grievance in connection with the period after
constitution of Jamtara Nagar Panchayat can also be taken care of by
the Executive Officer. He has submitted that if any liability has been
imposed under prior to aforesaid Bihar amendment and the Notified
Area Committee was in existence prior to Bihar amendment, then
under such circumstances the liability would remain and if there is any
subsequent Notification under the aforesaid Act creating any liability
by virtue of creation of Jamtara Nagar Panchayat, the same can also be
taken care of. The petitioner being a government undertaking can
certainly place the entire materials before the Executive Officer of
Jamtara Nagar Panchayat in terms of the provisions of the Municipal
Act.
22. The learned counsel has submitted that in the affidavit dated
05.09.2012 specific reference has been made in paragraph 18 with
respect to the saving clause under Section 390-C of the Municipal Act.
The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this
court in 2004(3) J.C.R. 262 (Gamaria Nagrik Samiti and Anr. Vs.
State of Bihar and Others) and has submitted that by referring to the
provisions of Section 390-C of Bihar Municipal Act, this court has
observed that the main section envisages that the municipality and the
10
Notified Area Committee shall cease to exist after commencement of
the ordinance but the second proviso saves the existing
Municipality/Notified Area Committee till regular Municipality/
Notified Area Committee are constituted.
Findings of this court.
23. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties and considering the fact and circumstances of this case this
court finds that the foundational fact with regard to acquisition of land
for the purposes of railway siding is not in dispute. The land
acquisition notification is corresponding to land acquisition case no. 5
of 1986 and Case no. 6 of 1986-87. Apparently numerous orders have
been passed in the present case relating to quantification of taxes by
the Notified Area Committee. However, the exact date of constitution
of Notified Area Committee, Jamtara is not on record.
24. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case
of Dwarika Nath Prasad versus State of Bihar wherein the Notified
Area Committee itself was constituted after the coming into force of
Bihar Municipal Ordinance Amendment, 1994 [came into effect from
30.05.1994] and accordingly all the action taken by the Notified Area
Committee constituted after 30.05.1994 were vitiated. On the other
hand, the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed in the case
of Gamaria Nagrik Samiti versus State of Bihar which refers to
Section 390-C of the Municipal Act whereby there is a saving clause
and continuity of existing notified area committee has been provided
for . Section 390 C is quoted as under: –
” 390C. Savings- The Municipalities, the Notified Area
Committees on the commencement of this ordinance shall
cease to function as such and the same shall be
constituted, in the manner and under the provisions of this
Act and such area may be declared, by notification in
accordance with the provisions of sub clauses (i) and (ii)
or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act as
Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may
be, provided that if any Municipal Area or Notified Area
or part thereof is in the opinion of the State Government
not capable or being declared as a Municipality under the
provisions of this Act, such area or part thereof may be
governed by the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 19, 1993).
11
Provided further, notwithstanding the provisions of this
Act, the Municipality and the Notified Area Committee
which were validly constituted under the B & O Municipal
Act, 1922 (B & O Act 7,1922) shall continue to function till
the constitution and the first meeting of the Municipality.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, any
thing done or any action taken by the Municipal authority
or the N. A. C. in exercise of any power conferred by or
under the B. Q. & O. Municipal Act, 1922 (B. & O. Act 7
of 1922), shall be deemed to have been done or taken by
the Municipality or the Panchayat, as the case may be,
under the provisions of this Act, or the Bihar Panchayat
Raj Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 19, 1993).
(3) The provisions of the Act shall have effect,
notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the
Bihar and Orissa Act 7, 1922.”
25. The grievance of the petitioner is in connection with the
liability both for pre-amendment and post amendment period and the
quantification of liability is also in dispute as the liability has been
fastened without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is required to be taken care of by
taking into consideration as to whether the Jamtara Notified Area
Committee was in existence prior to 30.05.1994 [the date on which
Bihar amendment to Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was made
effective] or Jamtara Notified Area Committee which has imposed the
liability came into existence after 30.05.1994 and taking care of other
government notifications issued thereafter. In the absence of the exact
date of coming into force of concerned Jamtara Notified Area
Committee, the point raised by the petitioner that the entire
liability/demand raised after 30.05.1994 is null and void cannot be
decided in these writs proceeding. The fact also remains that the
liability has been fastened upon the petitioner without giving
opportunity of hearing and therefore the petitioner is also aggrieved by
the quantum of liability.
26. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered
view that the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Jamatara would
be the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner
with respect to his liability prior to 30.05.1994 and also post
30.05.1994 and also pursuant to creation of the Jamtara Nagar
Panchayat in the year 2006 vide notification no. 373 dated 06.02.2006
12
published in Jharkhand Gazettee Extraordinary No. 76 dated
15.02.2006 [annexure-A to counter affidavit dated 03.09.2012].
Certain liability involved in the present case is also for the period post
2006.
27. Accordingly, Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Jamatara
is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner in the light of
the aforesaid observations made by this court and upon filling of a
representation within three months from today with respect to the
liability of each period and pass a reasoned order after granting
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of filing of such representation. The petitioner
shall produce the records of the writ petitions along with the
judgments which have been mentioned above and also a copy of the
applicable provisions of law.
28. It is observed that the date of Notification of Jamtara Notified
Area Committee will have a bearing in this case and therefore the
reasoned order should clearly reflect the date of the notification of
Jamtara Notified Area Committee.
29. The payment made by the petitioner would be the subject to the
final outcome of the representation to be filed by the petitioner
pursuant to this order.
30. These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
13