Nilu Agrawal, J.

Appellants are proprietorship concern, having its office at Patna, are advertisers engaged in the business of Outdoor Media Publicity and, have preferred these Intra Court Appeals against the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in CWJC No. 5108 of 2012 and CWJC No. 5369 of 2012 which were heard as analogous cases by the learned Single Judge.

2. With consent of the parties, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. For the sake of convenience facts in relation to L.P.A. No. 1391 of 2012 is being referred to and the observations/directions and legal proposition will be applicable to L.P.A. No. 1436 of 2012 as well.

4. Appellant, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, had sought quashing of Demand note contained in Letter No. 26 dated 11.02.2012 issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer (Town), Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) raising a demand of Rs. 64,50,040/- towards royalty/fee/tax to be paid, as well as office order dated 02.11.2007 issued by the Town Commissioner whereby various rates of royalty/penalty were purportedly prescribed under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Petitioner before the Learned Single Judge had also sought quashing of the Resolution No. 18 and Proposal No. 551 passed by the Council of the Corporation under its 19th Meeting dated 15.12.2010, whereby it was resolved to cancel the registration of those advertising agencies, who have defaulted in making payment of the said royalty/fee/tax. The appellant further by filing supplementary affidavit had brought on record the various representations by which while admitting that they were paying royalty/fee/tax on the basis of an arrangement between the representatives of the advertisers and the Corporation since 2005, but at the same time stated that they challenged the said charge on the ground that being registered under the Bihar Tax on Advertisement Act, 2007 under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 2007, they have been paying tax as charged under the provisions of the said Act and that they cannot be subjected to double taxation under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.

5. Learned Single Judge after detailed hearing of the said writ application along with other analogous writ applications, however, did not interfere with the charge of royalty/fee/tax imposed by the authorities of the Corporation, as by way of arrangement they had agreed to pay the same since 2005, and were also held entitled to pay at the rate fixed by the Corporation in the year 2007, but observed that it would not be entitled to charge penalty as Regulations under the Municipal Act not having been framed till then.

6. Thus, the primal question to be decided in this appeal is whether the Municipal Corporation is authorized by law to levy, demand and/or collect tax on Advertisement?

7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The advertising agency, such as the petitioner, had agreed to pay royalty to the Corporation as per the arrangement made between the representatives of the advertising agencies and the Corporation on 29.08.2005 at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per square feet per year. The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 came into existence with effect from 05.04.2007. The rates of royalty were exorbitantly enhanced with effect from 02.11.2007 @ Rs. 10/- per square feet by the Town Commissioner of the Corporation and different rates of royalty for different kinds of Hoardings and advertisements were to be charged from the advertisers and failure to make payment would attract penalty. Thereafter vide Resolution No. 18 and Proposal No. 551 passed by the Council of the Corporation under its 19th Meeting dated 15.12.2010, it was resolved to cancel the registration of those advertising agencies who have defaulted in making payment of the enhanced royalty/fee/tax. A Letter No. 26 dated 11.02.2012 was subsequently issued raising a demand of Rs. 64,50,0