Suman Bhagat & Ors v. M.C.D

ORDER

05.07.2012 o w.p.(c) r t4t6/2005, 6824/2007, 40sti/2006 Pg. I of 3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. D t /?

¶1It could not be disputed by learned counsels for the MCD that the matter in issue in all these petitions is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in MCD v. Major General Inderpal Singh Kahai & Anr, 169 (2010) DLT 352 (DB). As per that judgment, option under Section 116-G (2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is available to the assessee even when the assessment has been finalized by the assessing officer but the statutory appeal thereagainst is pending. The Division Bench has held, that the pendency of such an appeal would amount to the assessment having not been finalized and it gives discretion to the assessee to exercise his option to be govemed by the new provisions, as permitted under Section 116-G (2) of the Act.

¶2Learned counsels for the respondent MCD however state that Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment in the case of Inderpol Singh Kalrui (supra) has been filed which has since been granted and appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. They however concede that the Supreme Court has not granted stay of the operation of the aforesaid judgment in Inderpal Singh Kahsi (supra).

¶3In view thereof, as of today, there is no impediment in following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench which binds a coordinate bench. At the same time, in order to obviate the MCD from taking the trouble of filing the appeals in all these cases as well, it is agreed by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Inclerpal Singh Kflhui (supra) is reversed by the Supreme Court, the decision rendered therein shall bind all these petitioners as well. w.p.(c) r r 41 6/2005, 6824/2007, 4050/2006 Pg.2 of 3 J 2o

¶4Thus, these writ petitions are allowed holding that the option exercised by the petitioners under Section 116-G (2) of the Act are permissible and the fresh assessment would be done by the MCD on the basis of these options, within three months from the date of decision of the Supreme Court. It is again made clear that the outcorne of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court shall govern the cases of the petitioners as well. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. JULY O5,2OI2 pk tv.p.(c) r t 4 t 6/200s, 6824/2007, 4050/2006 IEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW, J € Pg.3 of3

'(' /? {< 12. + IN TIM, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) rr4r6l20os SUMAN BHAGAT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. 'b. + 13. + 14. VETSUS M.C.D. & ORS. Through: w.P.(c) 682412007 SUMAN BHAGAT & ORS Through: VCISUS M.C.D Through: w.P.(c) 40sti/2006 D.C.CIIADHA Through: ..... Reipondent Ms. Amita Gupt4 Adv. ..... Petitioners Adr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Amita Gupt4 Adv. ..... Petitioner \4r. R.P. Sharma, Adv. e' M.C.D versus Through: Ms.Manito";;}t"fr,:lHl CORAM: HON'BLE TIIE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAHAI ENDLAW