1 CGHC010320272022 2026:CGHC:33029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 236 of 2022 1. Steel Authority Of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Through The Director In - Charge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Authorised Signatory 2. Chief General Manager I.O.C. Rajhara Mines, Dalli-Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administraton And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Municipal Council - Dalli-Rajhara Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dalli-Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Dalli-Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders quashing the impugned demand bill dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 2 and 3 Municipal Council and all subsequent actions, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.03 15:08:06 +0530 2 orders in pursuance to the impugned bill may be quashed. 10.2 That any other relief that may deemed fit may please be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demand notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) was issued by respondents No. 2 & 3 on the basis of the resolution dated 23.07.2020. The resolution was passed pursuant to the memo dated 31.08.2015 issued by the State Government under Section 162 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1961”), whereby the direction was issued to the Municipal Council to enhance the annual letting value. Similar memo was issued for the Corporation under Section 133-B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1956”), which was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(T) No.2/2018 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of C.G. and others). In said matter it was held that unless and until the procedure contemplated under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 is not followed, the order dated 31.08.2015 cannot be treated as an order, rather it can be treated as memo inviting the objection from the general public as well as the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, the Co-ordinate Bench set aside the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai vide order dated 19.06.2018. The order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench was challenged by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai before the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No.624/2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2018 upholding order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 19.06.2018. He further submits that earlier petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPT No. 50 of 2022 challenging the impugned resolution dated 3 23.07.2020, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 17.11.2025 relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 624 of 2018, therefore, the impugned demand notice dated 12.07.2022, in present case loses its efficacy, which was passed on the basis of resolution dated 23.07.2020. 3. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents endorsed the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that the petitioner may be directed to pay due taxes, leaving enhanced tax rate, but petitioner has not paid previous taxes even with earlier rate. 5. On aforesaid last contention of learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have already paid pervious taxes, but if there exits any dues, they are ready to make payment. 6. Having considered aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the parties, since the issue involved in the instant case arises out of the resolution dated 23.07.2020, which was challenged in WPT No. 50 of 2022, and said resolution has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench, relying upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in WPT No. 2 of 2018 dated 19.06.2018 and the issue involved in instant case is also similar to the Section 162 of the Act, 1961 pertaining to the Municipal Council, Dallirajhara, therefore, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(T) No.2/2018. Thus, impugned demand notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued on the basis of resolution dated 23.07.2020 also deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant