Deputy Commissioner, Ropar; and order dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government.

2. Briefly, the petitioner-Company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of caustic soda, liquid chlorine and other inorganic chemicals; and owns its manufacturing unit at Naya Nangal within the Notified Area Committee, Naya Nangal (presently ‘Municipal Council’).

2.1 Respondent No.1 (Notified Area Committee, Naya Nangal) issued notice dated 02.04.1984 (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner-Company, indicating that it had assessed the Annual Rental Value of the petitioner’s Industrial Buildings, etc., at the rate of 5% of the capital cost as Rs.10,01,078.10/- and the House Tax worked out to Rs.1,50,161.71/-

(being 15% of the Rental Value) for the year 1984-85.

2.2 It appears that the petitioner-Company, vide letter dated 11.05.1884, claimed exemption from payment of House Tax for a period of three years by placing reliance upon the Punjab Government Notification dated 01.06.1983 (Annexure P-3).

2.3 The Notified Area Committee, Naya Nangal granted exemption, as sought by the petitioner-Company, however, after expiry of three years, the respondent-Committee, vide order dated 21.02.1987 (Annexure P-4), again assessed the House Tax of the petitioner’s Industrial Premises for the year 1987-88 at Rs.1,50,161.71/-.

2.4 Petitioner-Company claims that it paid the aforesaid amount of House Tax under protest vide receipt dated 11.08.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.02.1987 (Annexure P-4) by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, which came to be partly allowed to the effect that the Annual Rental Value was ordered to be calculated at the rate of 4% of the capital cost as against

5%, vide order dated 14.09.1988 (Annexure P-5).

2.5 Still aggrieved, the petitioner-Company challenged the aforesaid order dated 14.09.1988 (Annexure P-5) by way of filing a petition under Section 237 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short ‘the 1911 Act’) before the Joint Secretary, Local Government, Punjab. On the other hand, the respondent-Committee also challenged the said order (Annexure P-5) by way of filing a separate petition.

2.6 Both the aforesaid petitions came to be decided by the Joint Secretary, Local Government, Punjab vide order dated 18.07.1990 (Annexure P-6), whereby, the assessment was maintained at the rate of 4%

of the capital cost.

2.7 Still aggrieved, the respondent-Committee preferred a writ petition (CWP-4032-1991) before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.04.1991 (Annexure P-7) by observing as under:-

“Perusal of orders, Annexures P/4 and P/5 shows that the orders have been passed mechanically. No reason has been given for reduction in tax from 5% to 4%. The Joint Secretary while hearing the appeal has also not given any reason for his agreeing with these orders. Such orders have been passed mechanically and without application of mind and the same are set aside and appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal by passing a speaking order within three months from the receipt of this order.”

2.8 Thereafter, the matter was again taken up by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, who vide its order dated 15.07.1991 (Annexure P-8) again ordered that the Annual Rental Value be assessed at the rate of 4% of the capital cost of the building.

2.9 Still aggrieved, the respondent-Committee preferred a revision petition before the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P-10), thereby setting aside order dated 15.07.1991 (Annexure P-8).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises regarding which the House Tax Assessment has been made is situated within the area of Naya Nangal, where t