Point of Law:
Person charged with the execution of a warrant of distress shall forthwith make an inventory of the property which he seizes under such warrant, at the same time, give a written notice in the form set forth in the Ninth Schedule, to the person in possession thereof at the time of seizure that the said property will be sold as therein mentioned – Municipal Corporation is also authorized to recover the tax due from the defaulter by attachment and sale of immovable property as is provided under Sections 512 to 514 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the Order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure-6) by the Commissioner of Lucknow Municipal Corporation issued in exercise of powers under Sections 509-516 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Corporations Act) whereby the Municipal Corporation directed to seize the bank account of the petitioners in ICICI Bank, Teli Bagh, Lucknow. It has been further directed that no money should be allowed to be withdrawn from the said account till ‘No Dues Certificate’ is issued by the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners are in arrears of the municipal tax (general/house tax) amounting to Rs. 04,39,31,776 (Four Crores Thirty Nine Lakh Thirty One Thousand and Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Rupees) till 31.03.2020 and, despite demand notice, the payment has not been made by the petitioners.

2. Petitioner Number 1 runs and operates Sardar Patel Institute of Dental and Medical Science( Medical College) as well as OP Chaudhary Hospital and Research Centre within the municipal limits of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation.

3. The petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 1048 (M/B of 2006) challenging the assessment and demand of tax on the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were also entitled for exemption from property tax as was given to the educational institutions imparting education up to Class XIIth standard. Initially, this Court granted interim order in favor of the petitioner on the condition of deposit of Rs. 16 Lakhs.

4. The Division Bench of this Court vide its final judgment and order dated 04.06.2010 (Annexure-2) did not find any substance in the Writ petition and challenge to the constitutional validity of section 177(c) of the Municipal Corporations Act and held that the institutions imparting education up to intermediate standard and the professional institutions were two different classes. These were not equals and therefore, they could not be treated equally. It was further held that the differentiation was based on intelligible criteria and State was well within its power to exempt the educational institutes imparting education up to Class 12th standard and, there was no discrimination as alleged or otherwise. It was also held that the petitioners had statutory remedy of appeal under section 472 of the Municipal Corporations Act if they had any grievance against the tax imposed. The petitioners were given opportunity to file appeal within a period of one month and, it was directed that the appellate authority should entertain and decide the appeal on merit preferably within a period of four months without entering into the question of limitation. Thus, the issue of payment of property tax by the petitioners got finally settled by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2010 referred to above.

5. It appears that the petitioners had filed Appeal No. 11 of 2010 before the designated Court, Lucknow and the appeal is still pending. Strangely enough the petitioners approached this Court again second time by filing Writ Petition No. 5320 (M/B) of 2011 on the same ground that the petitioners were not liable for assessment and demand of property tax under the provisions of Municipal Corporations Act, the issue which had attained finality. This Court on the very first day disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following peculiar order:

“Heard counsel for the petitioners Sri J.P. Mathur and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh for the respondents.

Petitioners grievance is that though petitioners are charitable institutes and are entitled for exemption from house tax, yet assessment has been made against them and though appeal has been filed against the assessment which is pending before the Judge, Small Cause Court, the Nagar Nigam is proceeding to make recovery by adopting coercive methods. He further says t