Committee Vs. State of Punjab  INSC 507 (4 October 1994)
M.N.(Cj) Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj) Bharucha S.P. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Verma, Jagdish
Saran (J) Ray, G.N. (J)
1995 AIR 3 1994 SCC (6) 619 1994 SCALE (4)390
These civil appeals and special leave petitions are filed by the New Delhi
Municipal Committee against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court
delivered on 14-3-1975, in State of A.P v. New Delhi Municipal Committee1 and against other
orders of the same High Court which follow the aforementioned judgment. The
respondents in these various civil appeals and special leave petitions are the
States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tripura, + From the Judgment and Order dated
14-3-1975 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. Nos. 342 of 1969, 567 and 845 of 1973
1 CWP No. 342 of 1969 620 Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Orissa, Gujarat,
Jammu & Kashmir and West Bengal. All these matters can conveniently be
dealt with together.
Each of the States has immovable property within the Union Territory of Delhi.
It is the contention of the States that they are exempt from the payment of
property tax leviable under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911,
as applicable to Delhi by virtue of the exemption granted
to the property of a State by Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India. The
contention of the States was upheld by the judgment aforementioned, which was,
in the main, founded upon the opinion of this Court in Bill to amend Section 20
of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944, Re2.
Having duly considered the majority opinion in the Presidential Reference
aforementioned, we find that the point at issue in these matters is covered
thereby. The opinion was accepted by a Constitution Bench of this Court hearing
a litigation inter partes. This was the decision in APSRTC v. IT03. We are
bound by this decision.
This, however, does not detract from the plausibility of the contentions
advanced before us on behalf of appellant and the intervener, the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.
contentions, based upon constitutional provisions, were not advanced in the
cases aforementioned and require consideration. Large financial stakes are
these matters shall be placed before a nine- Judge Bench which shall decide
whether the concerned observations made in the Sea Customs case2 require