By the Court.—Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri C.K. Parekh, Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing notification dated 22.9.2014 issued by Nagar Ayukt/Municipal Commissioner, Saharanpur published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.1.2015 in so far as it relates to imposition of show tax on Cinema Halls, whereby rate of show tax has been revised from Rs. 20/- to 100/- per show.

3. Petitioner is an association of Cinema exhibitors running Cinema Halls at Saharanpur registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1860”). Earlier Saharanpur had Nagar Palika governed by the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1916”) but vide notification dated 1.10.2009 published by State Government, exercising power under Section 3 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1959”), read with Article 243-Q(1) of Constitution, covering a larger urban area of Saharanpur, it has been notified as Municipal Corporation and erstwhile Municipal Council stood dissolved. Since the date Municipal Council, Saharanpur has been notified as Municipal Corporation, no election has been held to constitute an elected body of Corporation at Saharanpur and it is still functioning under the Administrator who is exercising all powers of Corporation by virtue of Section 8(4) of Act, 1959, which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2005.

4. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, informed that this Amendment Act No. 23 of 2005 has been declared ultra vires of Constitution by this Court vide judgment dated 5.12.2011 passed in Misc. Bench No. 11226 of 2011 (Sandeep alias Sandeep Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others). We are also informed that State has preferred appeal before Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34436 of 2011, which is pending and Court has only extended period for holding election.

5. Be that as it may, case set up by petitioner is that procedure for imposition of tax has been provided in Sections 199 to 204 of Act, 1959. Without following said procedure Chief Tax Assessment Officer, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur published a notice on 8.8.2014 that a decision has been taken to revise rates of various taxes and fees and any person objecting thereto may file his objection. Thereafter alleging that no objection was filed, impugned notification dated 22.9.2014 has been published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.1.2015.

6. It is said that process followed by respondents is inconsistent with statutory provisions and impugned notification in so far as it has revised rate of show tax is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also said that in the present case notification has been issued by Municipal Commissioner and not State Government. Municipal Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to revise such rate of show tax. It is said that power of Corporation has been conferred, to be exercised by Administrator, appointed under Section 8-AA and Municipal Commissioner has not been conferred such power. He is an employee of Corporation appointed under Section 58 of Act, 1959. He cannot function as Corporation and discharge functions as a substitute for Corporation.

7. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stating that prior to 1.10.2009 there existed a Nagar Palika Parishad for City Saharanpur functioning under the provisions of Act, 1916. With effect from 1.10.2009, a notification was issued under Section 3 of Act, 1959 read with Article 243-Q(1) of Constitution and thereby Nagar Palika Parishad was replaced by Municipal Corporation. Nagar Palika Parishad during its functioning had already imposed certain taxes and fees under the pr