Dismissed¶43

Mool Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2025CWP/10254/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of prohibition; conservancy fee/charges; scavenging tax; enhancement of tax rate levied under repealed Punjab Municipal Act 1911; Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976 S.428 S.431 S.90; Municipal Corporation Amritsar resolution No.16/25 dated 07.11.1997; prematurity of writ petition; no demand notice or assessment order issued; cause of action on show cause/demand notice; petition dismissed; CWP-10254-2003 (O&M); Amritsar; Hotel Pagasus; Mool Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of an assessment order or demand notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner, the present petition is premature. ¶42

Mool Raj Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

202

¶4

CWP-10254-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2025

¶5

MOOL RAJ GUPTA ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ***

¶10

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶11

On 13.10.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-

¶12

“The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering/collecting/charging conservancy fee/charges.

¶13

The instant petition was originally filed by Mool Raj Gupta who was owner of a Hotel named Pagasus. He sold his property and at present Deepika Arora is owner of the Hotel. The aforesaid Hotel came into existence before 1947. The State Government in exercise of power conferred by Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘1911 Act’) vide notification dated 05.08.1942 levied scavenging tax. The 1911 Act came to be repealed by Section 431 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short ‘1976 Act’). 1976 Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1977. As per Section 428 of 1976 Act,

¶14

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.11 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-10254-2003 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

notifications, notices, taxes levied by 1911 Act are saved. For the ready reference, Sections 428 and 431 of 1976 Act are reproduced as below:

¶18

“428. Continuation of appointments, taxes, budget estimates, assessments, etc.—

¶19

Save as expressly provided otherwise in this Act,-

¶20

(a) any appointment, delegation, notification, notice, tax, order, direction, scheme, licence, permission, registration, rule, bye-law, regulation, form made, issued imposed or granted under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or any other law in force in any local area, constituted to be a City or included in a City, immediately before the appointed day shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force until it is superseded by any appointment, delegation, notification, notice, tax, order, direction, scheme, licence, permission, registration, rule, bye-law or form made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act or any other law as aforesaid, as the case may be;

¶21

(b) all proceedings for acquisition of land whether in pursuance of any scheme of improvement or otherwise initiated under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or any other enactment applicable to the area included in the City may be continued as if these had been initiated under this Act;

¶22

(c) all budget estimates, assessments, valuations, measurements, and divisions made under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or any other law in force in any area constituted to be a City or included in a City immediately before the appointed day shall, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been made under this Act

¶23

(d) every officer and other employee serving immediately before the appointed day under the municipal committee for the area which has been

¶24

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.11 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-10254-2003 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

constituted to be a City or under any other local authority the whole of local area whereof has been included in a city, other than those referred to in subsection (1) of section 71, shall be transferred to and become an officer or other employee of the Corporation with such designation as the Commissioner may determine and hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have held the same if the city had not been constituted or the local area had not been included in the city, as the case may be, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the Corporation is duly terminated or until the remuneration, terms or conditions of service are duly revised by the Corporation:

¶28

Provided that the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the appointed day shall not be varied to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Government.

¶29

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

¶30

431. Repeal.- The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officers) Act, 1931, the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, shall stand repealed in the area constituted to be a City or included in a City with effect from the day on which it is so constituted or included.”

¶31

The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vide resolution No.16/25 dated 07.11.1997 decided to increase rate of conservation charges.

¶32

Learned Senior counsel, at the outset, submits that petitioner has not assailed validity of resolution dated 07.11.1997 thus, respondent cannot be prohibited from affecting recovery as per said resolution.

¶33

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner does not dispute levy of scavenging and

¶34

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.11 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CWP-10254-2003 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

conservation charges under 1911 Act and dispute is confined to power of respondent to enhance rate of tax which was levied under 1911 Act. The Corporation may levy any tax as per Section 90 of 1976 Act, however, tax levied under repealed Act cannot be increased.

¶38

Adjourned to 11.11.2025.”

¶39

The petitioner has filed application seeking amendment of writ petition. In the application, the petitioner is seeking permission to amend writ petition which would entail assailing of resolution passed by Municipal Corporation Amritsar.

¶40

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-MC submits that till date neither demand notice nor assessment order has been passed against the petitioner. In the absence of demand, the writ petition is premature.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to controvert the fact that till date respondent has neither framed assessment nor issued demand notice.

¶42

In the absence of assessment order or demand notice issued by respondent to petitioner, we find that present petition is premature. The petitioner would get cause of action, the moment show cause notice or demand notice is issued to him or assessment order is framed against him. The petitioner in the main petition sought prohibition from collecting/charging conservancy fee. There cannot be general order of prohibition unless and until there is demand from the ones filing petition.

¶43

In the wake of above discussion and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the instant petition being premature deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¶44

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.11 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CWP-10254-2003 (O&M)

¶46

-5-

¶47

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶48

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶49

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

¶50

December 10, 2025 Deepak DPA

¶51

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶52

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.11 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Resolution No.16/25 dated 07.11.1997 of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar increasing rate of conservation charges — the measure the petitioner sought (via amendment application) to assail; the original petition had not assailed it.¶31
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar · 07.11.1997
Prior proceeding
Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of prohibition restraining respondents from recovering/collecting/charging conservancy fee/charges.¶12
Prior proceeding
Original petitioner Mool Raj Gupta was owner of a Hotel named Pagasus; he sold the property and Deepika Arora is now the owner.¶13
Prior proceeding
The Hotel came into existence before 1947.¶13
Prior proceeding
Scavenging tax levied by the State Government vide notification dated 05.08.1942 under power conferred by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.¶13
Prior proceeding
The 1911 Act was repealed by Section 431 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; the 1976 Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1977.¶13
Prior proceeding
Notifications, notices and taxes levied under the 1911 Act are saved (per Section 428 of the 1976 Act); the Court reproduced Sections 428 and 431 of the 1976 Act for ready reference.¶17
Prior proceeding
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vide resolution No.16/25 dated 07.11.1997 decided to increase rate of conservation charges.¶31
Prior proceeding
On 13.10.2025 this Court passed an interim order, reproduced in extenso in this judgment.¶11
Prior proceeding
Senior counsel conceded at the outset that the petitioner had not assailed validity of resolution dated 07.11.1997; hence respondent cannot be prohibited from affecting recovery as per said resolution.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel submitted that levy of scavenging and conservation charges under the 1911 Act is not disputed; the dispute is confined to the power to enhance the rate of tax levied under the 1911 Act.¶37
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel contended that the Corporation may levy any tax as per Section 90 of the 1976 Act, but tax levied under the repealed Act cannot be increased.¶37
Prior proceeding
The interim order adjourned the matter to 11.11.2025.¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed application seeking amendment of the writ petition, which would entail assailing of the resolution passed by Municipal Corporation Amritsar.¶39
Prior proceeding
Senior Counsel for respondent-MC submitted that till date neither demand notice nor assessment order has been passed against the petitioner; in the absence of demand, the writ petition is premature.¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel expressed inability to controvert that the respondent has neither framed assessment nor issued demand notice.¶41

Mool Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mool Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhakra Beas Management Board and Anr. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

M/S Gold Star Indus. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Jindal Fine Indus. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Deva Singh Sham Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Asr.

M/S Super Hinges Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

St. Bank of Ptiala, Patiala Vs Comm. of Income Tax, Patiala & Anr.