IMPORTANT POINT
Constitutional Law--Notification/executive action not issued in name of Governor--Provisions of Article 166 are directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance of Article 166 will not nullify the notification.

Jaswant Singh J.:- This order will dispose of four civil writ petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 8911 of 2007, C.W.P. No. 13483 of 2007, C.W.P. No. 3647 of 2007and C.W.P. No. 3730 of 2008.

2. The aforesaid Civil Writ Petitions involve identical/common question of law. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by way of the present common judgment. Counsel for the parties have agreed that C.W.P. No.8911 of 2007 be treated as main Writ Petition and rest of the Writ Petitions may be disposed of in the same terms. Therefore, we have decided to enumerate the facts in brief as pleaded by the parties in C.W.P. No.8911 of 2007.

3. The petitioners who are 15 in number have filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order/notification dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P- 5) passed by respondent No.1-State of Punjab and published in Punjab Government Gazette (extra) dated November 03, 2004 approving the extension of municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Patiala as per proposed boundaries published in notification dated 6th July, 2004 (Annexure P-4) and further to quash the impugned notices/assessment order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Patiala levying the house-tax upon the properties of the petitioners being situated within the extended limits of Municipal Corporation, Patiala.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that earlier Patiala was having a Municipal Committee governed and regulated by Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the limits of the Committee were extended from time to time and one copy of such notification dated 14.02.1975 extending the Municipal limits by the Government of Punjab is appended as Annexure P-1 with the Writ Petition. In the year 1976, the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “1976 Act”) was enacted and the Municipal Committee, Patiala was declared as Municipal Corporation, Patiala on 23.09.1997.

5. Vide Resolution No.61 dated 9th of October, 2003 (Annexure P- 2) Municipal Corporation resolved and proposed for the extension of municipal limits of Patiala city and the decision of the General House of Municipal Corporation is reproduced here as under:-

“Municipal Corporation, Patiala has constituted a Committee to extend the Municipal limit of Patiala City, earlier. This Committee had reported that after the upgradation of Municipal Corporation, no Municipal Limit was extended as yet. Although many commercial units had come over outside the Municipal Limit, resulting huge loss of Octroi to the Corporation; because of close proximity of godown etc. in these areas, the goods are being transported in the City through car/vehicle without payment of Octori. Besides this many commercial areas as per map can be included in M.C. limit and by doing so there will be increase in the revenue of the House Tax of the Corporation. The report of the Committee was put up before the house. After due discussion on the report, it was resolved that keeping in mind the economic benefit to the Corporation, the M.C. Limit for the time being may be extended from Rajpura road to Hira Bagh Bye-pass only as shown in the map. It was also resolved by the General House that after necessary action, the case may be sent to the Government for notification.”

6. The resolution was forwarded to the Government vide letter dated 21.06.2004. Subsequent thereto in compliance with certain directions given by the Government of Punjab, respondent No.2-M.C. Patiala vide letter dated 25.06.2004 sent schedule of boundaries of limits, proposed to be extended. The proposal submitted by respondent No.2 was, prima facie, found to be acceptable by respondent No.1 as the area proposed to be included within the municipal limits was/is contiguous to the existing boundary of Municipal Corporation, being predominantly the commercial area. Therefore, respondent No.1 while exercising powers conferred under sub Section 3 of Se