( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:-

1. Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municial Corporation of Delhi ( mcd for short) undersection 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short dmc Act ) and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ( ndmc for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ( pm Act for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas;

2. A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words "be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier" appearinginsub-section (3)ofsection 131 of the DMC Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and

3. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to continue to determine the rateable value of the properties of the members of the first petitioner society and other petitioners on the basis of reasonable letting value as provided under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 116 of the DMC Act and section 3 (1) (b) (c) of the PM Act and in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Raj Kapoor s case (AIR 1980s. C. 541)anddr. Balbirsingh scase (AIR 1985 S. C. 339 ).

( 2 ) ALL these challenges, in effect, have been made to contend that amendment made in 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act has no bearing for arrving at the rateable value/ annual value of the properties as he thertofore done and principles laid down by the two judgments of the Supreme Court continue to be applicable.

( 3 ) A subsidiary point has also been raised that if the assessment of the property tax is to be made on the basis of actual rent received then the relevant provisions under the DMC Act and PM Act would be unconstitutional as that would amount to tax on the income which has to be distributed among the States as per provisions of the Constitution. It is, thus, contened that legislature cannot introduce a parallel income-tax in the garb of property tax.

( 4 ) THE petition was filed by eight petitioners. Firstpetitioner,as the name suggests, is the Cooperative Society performing its functions under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. Seven other petitioners are owners of properties all situated in the cotony Vasant Vihar which had been developed by the first petitioner society. There are six respondents. First respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs; second is the Lt. Governor of Delhi; third is Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary; fourth is the MCD; fifth is the Assessor and Collector of the MCD; and sixth is the Administrator, NDMC.

( 5 ) THIS petition wasfiledon21 August 1991. Alongwith this anapplication (C. M. 4422/91 ) was also filed seeking a restraint on the MCD and NDMC from proceeding with the notices under sections 126 and 131 of the DMC Act and 67 of the PM Act to enhance the rateable value of the properties in their respective jurisdictional areas in pursuance of the amendment to Delhi Rent Control Act. Then an application (CM 3041 /92) was filed by Common Cause through its Director, Mr. H. D. Shourie, seeking to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. This was allowed by orderdated29may 1992. On 11 May 1992 petitioners filed yet another application (CM 3558/92) for stay of notices issued by the MCD and NDMC under aforesaid provisions of the two Acts for the year commending from I April 1988. On this, while issuing notice the court passed an order that no coercive steps in the meanwhile be taken to realise tax from the petitioners inexcess of the admitted amount which was being paid by the petitioners earlier to the issue of the notices. On 20 August 1992, 105 applicants filed an application (CM 5487/92) also seeking to be implead