CANTONMENT BOARDAMBALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy here concerns the bus stand of the Haryana Roadways in Ambala Cantonment. The Cantonment Board. Ambala purporting to act under the provisions of the Cantonments Act. 1924(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') called upon the General Manager Haryana Roadways, to pay a sum of Rs. 6300/- as house tax and Rs. 4900/- as water tax, for this bus stand on the basis of the annual valuation hereof of Rs. 70,000/- a assessed by it, that is the Cantonment Board, This claim was negative by he District magistrate, Ambala on appeal by District Magistrate, Ambala on appeal by his order of Feb. 14, 1975(Annexure P-3), holding that the bus stand was exempt from the payments of the amounts claimed under the provisions of Se. 99(2)(f) of the Act. It is against this order that the present writ petition is directed. The relevant provisions of Section 99(2)(f) of the Act are reproduced hereunder :

(2.) In order to qualify for exemption under the above provision, the building or land concerned must satisfy two conditions :--

(3.) The bus stand admittedly satisfies the first condition being property belonging to the Haryana Government. It was with regard to the second condition, that contentions were raised. The argument put forth by Mr. S. C. Sibal, appearing for the Cantonment Board was that as the Haryana Government derived income from this bus-stand from the shops located therein. It could not be said that it was being used for any pubic service or public purpose. In other words, the financial gain that accrues to the Haryana Government from this bus stand negatives its "Public purpose'. This is indeed fan untenable proposition. What is otherwise a "Public Purpose" cannot be robbed of its character as such merely because in fulfilling it. some financial gain may accrue thereby to the authority providing it.