Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/887/2025 on 8 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office N ot e s,
Date r e por t s,
or de r s or COURT'S OR JUD GE'S ORD ERS
pr oce e dings
or dir e ct ions
a nd
Re gist r a r 's
or de r w it h
Sign a t u r e s
S- I / 13(1) WPMS No.887 of 2025
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Kurban Ali, Mr. Nishant Kishor
(through video conferencing) and Ms.
Lubhna Jahan, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief
Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for
respondent no.3.
Heard on Stay Application No.2 of
2025.
Yesterday, when WPMS No.1028 of
2025 was taken up, this Court noticed
that similar matter is on Board today. In
fact, in WPMS No.1028 of 2025, M/S
Rockland Hotels Rudrapur Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Nagar
Nigam Rudrapur and others, this Court
has granted an ad interim stay. But today,
it has been clarified by the following
order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is ready
to pay the house tax, in accordance with
law. But, it cannot be paid to both, the
respondent no.1, the Nagar Nigam,
Rudrapur Uttarakhand and to the
respondent no.3, the State
Infrastructure and Industrial
Development Corporation of
Uttarakhand Limited (SIDCUL). He
would submit that it would be clarified
that to whom the house tax is to be paid
as per law? The petitioner would abide
by it.
During the course of hearing, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 would
submit that the house tax is to be levied
by the Nagar Nigam Rudrapur. But, the
maintenance fee, is a separate issue,
falls within the sphere of the respondent
no.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the maintenance fee
is not an issue in the instant matter.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner
that he is ready and willing to pay the
house tax, in accordance. Now with law,
to one of the authorities. Now, it has
been clarified by the respondent no.3
that it is the respondent no.1, who is
entitled to levy the house tax. In view of
it, nothing survives in the interim relief
application. It stands disposed of
accordingly.
List on 23.06.2025."
On behalf of the respondents, in fact, it
is argued that the issue is no more res
integra, it has already been held by the
Court that Municipal Corporation is
entitled to house tax. He would refer to a
judgment dated 12.02.2019, passed by
this Court in WPMS No.328 of 2018, M/S
Friends Glass and Glazing Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others, and
connected matters, which was confirmed
in Special Appeal No.198 of 2019, M/S
Friends Glass and Glazing Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, and connected
matters, and it is argued that, in fact, the
SLP against it was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is being
charged twice by the SIDCUL as well as by
the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. He would
submit that it could not be done in view of
the Constitutional provisions as enshrined
under Article 243.
Having considered, this Court is of the
view that no interim order may be passed
at this stage.
List along with WPMS No.1028 of 2025
on the date fixed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.04.2025
Sanjay
