Allowed

Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee Ferozepur & etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2014CWP/3823/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition in certiorari seeking to quash a demand for service charges levied by the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur, on the Food Corporation of India regarding stored godowns, holding such levies impermissible under Article 285 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure P5) raising the demand for service charges was quashed.

Food Corporation of India Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 3823 of 1994

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 3823 of 1994

¶5

Date of decision : 14.11.2014

¶6

Food Corporation of India

¶7

....Petitioner

¶8

V/s

¶9

Municipal Committee, Ferozepur & ors.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Ms. Sukhmani Tiwana, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶14

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Addl. A.G. Pb.

¶15

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶16

Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of demand for `1,35,827.30/- raised on the petitioner-Corporation by the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur vide order, Annexure P5 dated 11.10.1993.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that issue is squarely covered by judgments of this court titled as Union of India vs. Municipal Council, Batala 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 988 and decision rendered by division bench of this court in CWP No. 10953 of 2000 titled as “ The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vs. State of Punjab & anr.” According to her, in view of provisions of Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, no service charges can be levied by Municipal Committee as regards property owned by Union of India.

¶18

AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.20 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CWP No. 3823 of 1994

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1- Municipal Committee does not dispute the ratio of aforesaid judgments.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

It appears that Food Corporation of India occupied certain godowns constructed by Central Government in Ferozepur. These godowns are used by Food Corporation of India for storage of food grains. Central Government issued a circular whereby it observed that properties owned by Central Government are exempted from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority withing a State under Article 285 of the Constitution. Despite the circular, Municipal Committee, Ferozepur raised a demand vide order, Annexure P5 asking the petitioner-Corporation to pay the service charges. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred instant writ petition.

¶24

I am of the considered view that there is merit in the plea of the petitioner-Corporation. In view of judgments in the cases of Union of India and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (supra), demand deserves to be quashed. As the demand is in violation of Article 285 of the Constitution of India, same cannot be sustained. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Order/Bill dated 11.10.1993, Annexure P5 is hereby quashed.

November 14, 2014

Ajay

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

To be referred to Reporter?

¶29

(Yes)

¶30

AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.20 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee Ferozepur & etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee Ferozepur & etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Singh etc. Vs Natha Singh etc.

Suresh Devi Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Darshan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Fateh Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab