D.N. PATEL, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, constitutional validity of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as well as the constitutional validity of the Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, are under challenge, being violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, as per the counsel for the petitioners.

2. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners:

• Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in W.P.(PIL) No. 764 of 2017,W.P. (PIL) No.697 of 2017, W.P.(PIL) No. 872 of 2017, has submitted that there is no upper limit of tax prescribed for the holding tax, under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011' for the sake of brevity] and hence, the Act, 2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside as it is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 667.

• Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per Article 243-X (a) of the Constitution of India, the authority is a Municipality, who has power to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees, subject to such limits, as may be prescribed by law. Thus there is bound to be an upper limit of the rate of taxes. Such powers to levy and collect the taxes are with the Municipality and not with the Government and hence, Jharkhand Property (Assessment, Collection and Levy) Rules, 2013 [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2013 for the sake of convenience] enacted by the State is beyond the powers as stated under Article 243-X of the Constitution of India.

• It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011, Municipality has to publish the Rules. The Rules enacted and amended by the State Government is in violation of Section 152(5) of the Act, 2011.

• It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that as per Section 152(6) of the Act, 2011, itself prescribes criteria have been given for arriving at annual rental value, whereas, as per the Rules, enacted by the State, as amended from time to time, especially, as per Rule-3 thereof, additional criteria have been prescribed. Thus, the Rules, 2013 is violative of the Act, 2011. Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out, in detail, about the additional criteria, mentioned in the self-assessment form, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the writ petition bearing W.P. (PIL) No.697 of 2017, like usage of the property, definition of road etc. and it is submitted that these criteria have never been mentioned in the Act, 2011, whereas, the Rules, 2013 have added these criteria and hence, the Rules, 2013 is violative of the Act, 2011.

• Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in:

On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that subordinate legislation can always be challenged, when the same is violative of the Constitution of India and/ or if it is violative of the principal Act.

• It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, were published on 28.09.2016 and it is made effective from 01.04.2016. Said Rules have been applicable with retrospective effect. There are no such powers vested with the State to enact such type of Rules and make them effective with retrospective effect. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 152(7) and 152(8) of the Act, 2011 are also unconstitutional, which authorize the Government to prescribe the rate of tax without any upper limit and thus, the same is violative of Article 243-X of the Constitution of India, because the said Article authorizes only the Municipality to presc