SUKHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the State of Punjab, three town Amritsar, Jalandhar and Ludhiana have municipal corporations and are governed by Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, whereas in other towns there are municipal committee governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Two sets of writ petitions were filed, one by the residents of Ludhiana Municipal Corporation and others by the residents of various other municipal committees, which are disposed of by this common judgment. The challenge in all these writ petitions was to the imposition of charges levied for meeting the expenses of laying down sewerage in the State of Punjab, Since most of the arguments in these two sets of cases were common, the two sets were disposed of by a common judgment and basically the facts were taken from the writ petition pertaining to Municipal Corporation Ludhiana In the later part of the judgment, the learned Single Judge discussed separately the points urged with regard to the residents of municipal committee which are governed under the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the 1911 Act ). The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The letters patent appeal under consideration arise out of C. W. P. 1431 of 1988, filed by the residents of Municipal Committee, Patiala. C. W. P No. 5178 of 1990 titled as Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, which has been filed by the residents of Municipal Committee Zira district Ferozepur, is also being disposed of by this judgment as counsel for the parties agreed that the decision rendered in the letters patent appeal, would also govern the fate of C W. P. No. 5178 of 1990. The facts are being stated from the letters patent appeal.

(2.) APPELLANTS claiming themselves to be the representatives of residents of Patiala, filed the petition in a representative capacity challenging the levying of sewerage charges vide notification Annexure P/4 dated 24-2-1982 equivalent to the water bill in a particular month on the ground that the municipal committee had no jurisdiction to levy such charges as the same was illegal, unjust, without authority amounting to double taxation and against the bye-laws and the provisions contained in the Punjab Municipal Act relating to taxes ; it was further averred that the municipal committee was statutorily bound to provide the basic amenities to the residents of the city such as provisions of the water, sanitation, drainage and sewerage etc; that the municipal committee was already charging tax from its residents in the form of house tax, water tax and other allied taxes and, therefore, there was no justification in levying sewerage charges equivalent to the water bill. The appellants have not taken a clear stand as to whether the levy of sewerage charges was a tax or a fee. At the time of arguments before us, counsel for the appellants categorically stated that he would proceed in the matter treating the levy of sewerage charges to be a fee and not a tax Counsel for the appellants submitted that such a fee could not be levied as the Municipal Committee had no authority to levy the same; that even if the municipal committee had the authority to levy fee, the same had not been levied after following the procedure laid down in the Act. Lastly, it was submitted that the taxes collected are merged in the general revenue of the State to be applied for the general purposes but fees on the other hand are used in the public interest and for some special service rendered involving an element of quid pro quo that in the present case there was no quid pro quo and nexus between the service rendered and the charges levied.

(3.) AS against this, the stand taken by the respondents (which is based on their written statement) is that the levying of sewerage charges was in the nature of fee and not tax and the same was legal and just and the committee levied the sewerage charges equal to the water charges after following the procedure laid down in the 1911 Act; it was further submitted that the committee is a statutory body which is to provide basic amenities to the residents such as roads, provisions for water and sewerage for which the committee has to maintain a special drainage system and treating plant and therefore; has to spend huge amount; that the drainage system for providing flush system facilities was provided after raising loans from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and after getting aid from the World Bank in Punjab. The aid was provided in the form of loan at reduced rate of interest payable in easy instalments. Provisions of underground water supply and sewerage facility is a very costly exercise and cannot normally be undertaken by a local body without massive financial assistance. The extension of existing water supply and sewerage facilities in the City of Patiala was taken on an ambitious scale under the World Bank Project which covered Ludhiana. Jalandhar, Amritsar, Rajpura, Patiala, Bhatinda, Moga and Pathankot. The total out-lay of the project was Rs. 66. 7 crores. A loan of Rs. 1,04,40,900 00 was received by the municipal committee and the payment of the same was to be made as per schedule fixed, a copy of which is attached as Annexure R/1; it was further averred that separate drainage and sewerage bye-laws were framed in the year 1978 under the Punjab Municipal Act and the sewerage charges equal to water charges were approved by the Government in November 1978 and the impugned notification Annexure P/4 amending the bye-laws was approved by the Government and thereafter the sewerage charges became payable as per the amended notification Annexure P/4. It was argued that the water charges had been levied after following the procedure laid down in the Act and bye-laws; that the municipal committee had the jurisdiction to levy the sewerage charges.