By the Court.—Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondents.

2. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Demand of advertisement tax in accordance with Agra Nagar Nigam (Samachar Patro Me Prakashit Vigyapano Par Kar Ka Nirdharan Karna Aur Use Vasool Karna) Niyamawali, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2005”) published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.9.2005 and came into force on 1.4.2005 has been challenged on the ground that no such rules were in existence in the year of demand, i.e., 2010-11 and, therefore, demand of advertisement tax under Rules, 2005 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.

4. All the petitioners are Companies engaged in providing telecommunication service. They are Licensed Service Providers in State of U.P. by virtue of licence granted by Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Telecommunication under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1885”). They have been authorized to set up and operate “Unified Access Services” (hereinafter referred to as the “UAS”) in the licensed service area.

5. Nagar Nigam, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the “NNA”) in purported exercise of powers under Sections 192, 219, 540(1), 550, 227, 172(2), (Ja) and 544 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1959”) framed bye-laws/Rules 2005 for imposing tax on advertisement, in the manner other than publication in newspapers, within territorial jurisdiction of NNA. Rules, 2005 contemplated a licence for the purpose of such advertisement and rate of tax payable by such person.

6. Subsequently, a new set of Rules, namely, U.P. Municipal Corporation (Assessment and Collection of Tax On Advertisement) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2009”) have been framed applicable to every Municipal Corporation in State of U.P. and aforesaid Rules clearly provide that same are being promulgated in supersession of all the previous rules and orders issued in this behalf. These Rules were published in notification dated 24.12.2009 and came into effect from the date of their publication in gazette. It is admitted case of the parties that on promulgation of Rules, 2009, the Rules, 2005 stood superseded.

7. Pursuant thereto NNA issued a demand notice dated 18.11.2010 for the year 2010-11 demanding advertisement tax to the tune of Rs. 5327666/- (in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2015), which was objected by petitioners in Writ Petition No. 139 of 2011. The Court vide judgment dated 29.1.2011 directed NNA to decide objections filed by petitioners. One of the objection taken by petitioners is that Rules, 2009 were challenged being ultra vires of Act, 1959 as also Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in various writ petitions led by Misc. Bench No. 3336 of 2010 (Anurag Bansal and others v. State of U.P. and others). A Full Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in 2011(5) ADJ 879 has upheld the contention and declares Rules, 2009 as ultra vires of Act, 1959 and has struck down the same.

8. Petitioners thus contended that since Rules, 2009 have been declared ultra vires, no new Rules have been framed and earlier Rules, 2005 having already superseded by Rules, 2009, will not revive, hence no advertisement tax is payable by them.

9. Respondent-Nagar Nigam, however, by means of orders impugned in writ petitions have decided representation and rejecting same have taken the view that after striking down of Rules, 2009 liability to pay advertisement tax would fall back upon Rules, 2005 which would stand revive and, therefore, petitioners are liable to pay advertisement tax accordingly.

10. The only question which has been argued before us is that, Rules,