N K SEHGAL Vs. MADHU MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation in this petition is that the 1. respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders contained in this Court's judgment dated 28.11.94 in CW. 430/94 and thereby committed contempt of court.

(2.) CW.430/94 was filed by the petitioners herein challenging the demand of property tax raised by NDMC vide bill No.376 dated 23.11.93 for Rs. 1,41,810.00 relating to certain property of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners was regarding the increased rateable value based on which the assessment for property tax was made. For the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93 the NDMC had accepted the rateable value of Rs. 72,951.00. But for the assessment year 1993-94 the rateable value was considerably increased. By judgment dated 28.11.94 this court set aside the impugned bill for the year 1993-94 as well as the resolution dated 4.3.93 enhancing the rateable value and directed that fresh order of assessment should be passed after hearing the petitioner. This court also directed the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on 10.1.95 to place before the assessing Officer the material as he might be advised. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer might make necessary enquiries from the tenant, if so adviced.

(3.) According to the averments in this petition the petitioners' representative Sh. O.P. Popli and Sh. B.K. Sharma appeared before respondent No. 1 on 10.1.95 and Sh. O.P. Popli handed over personally copies of the certain documents to respondent No. 1. It is also stated that before appearing before respondent No. 1 petitioners had filed representation in writing alongwith certain documents and they were received acknowledgment by the NDMC on 5.1.95. It is alleged that respondents intentionally and deliberately did not take any steps to carry out the directions in the above mentioned judgment. Instead they sent a bill of demand bearing No.2104 dated 9.1.96 thereby raising the demand of house tax on the same rateable value on the basis of which the earlier bill of demand for the year 1993 -94 was raised. On receipt of the said bill the petitioners' representative Sh. O.P.Popli personally contacted respondents 1 and 2 and apprised them of the facts and also filed a representation dated 20.1.96 in the office of the Assistant Secretary (Tax) NDMC on 23.1.96. However, both the respondents refused to withdraw the demand and allegedly made certain contemptuous and derogatory remarks about the court.