RAMAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since same order is impugned in both the writ petitions on dentical grounds, as such, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) he petitioners, through the medium of these present petitions, ave impugned the Order No. CEO-KDA/K/01-07/2010 dtd. 4/1/2010 (herein-after to be referred as 'the order impugned') passed by the respondents, by virtue of which, Building Operations and Control Authority (BOCA) of Katra Development Authority has fixed fee @ Rs.70.00 Sft./year for erection of display add/boards/hoardings on private land. No challenge has been thrown to the other part of the order levying fee for public land.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts necessary for deciding both the writ petitions are that in one of the petitions, the petitioners claim to be the proprietors of the advertisement agencies, who hire sites and install hoardings of their clients where as in the other petition the petitioners claim to be the owners of the land. They have assailed the order impugned on the grounds that the BOCA of Katra Development Authority has no jurisdiction to charge any tax or fee with regard to adds/boards/hoardings displayed on the private lands; that the rates of fees have been fixed after taking into consideration the rates applicable in the Jammu Municipal Corporation; that the Municipal Committee/Corporation is competent and authorized to impose tax and fee on certain items mentioned in the Municipal Act and the procedure laid down in the Municipal Act has to be strictly followed for imposing the said fee/tax; that after the resolution for imposing fees/tax is passed by the Municipal Committee, subject to conditions laid down by the Government by the issuance of rules/orders, the said decision has to be communicated to the Government and then the Government after approving the same has to notify the same in the Government Gazette and the said tax/fee would be applicable w.e.f. appointed date; that the order impugned is discriminatory, unfair, unreasonable and wrong as the publicity material is erected by the owner of the property for display sometimes for one day, one week, one month, two months etc. and therefore, the decision to charge fee annually is totally unwarranted, unjustified and illegal. The petitioners have also placed on record notice dtd. 8/3/2010 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby petitioner No. 3 has been asked to deposit the fee as per the approved rates.