Parties are heard on question of admission.

Though each of the petitioners is claiming the same relief but for the sake of convenience we take the facts from Writ Petition No. 13410 of 2009 (O).

The petitioner, a Government contractor, entered into some agreements/contracts with respondent No. 1 for construction of residential complex. Undisputedly, there were no terms in the agreement/contract that the service tax would be paid either by the petitioner or by respondent No. 1. It appears that after the execution of the contract was over, respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioner to deposit the service tax. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said demand, placing reliance upon the resolution/subject No. 12 taken up by the board of directors of respondent No. 1 on October 23, 2009, has come to this court with a submission that if respondent No. 1 has resolved that in the matters where there was no condition for payment of the service tax then in all such cases where the contract was already executed, the service tax would be paid by respondent No. 1 but in all cases for future the service tax shall be paid by the contractor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner subm