IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 11787 of 2009 Between: Mohd. John ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Questioning the action of the second respondent, in issuing demand notice dated 15.10.2008 for Rs.10,871/-, as illegal and arbitrary, and their action in not considering the earlier representation dated 5.10.2004 and also the revision application dated 3.10.2007 as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. It is wholly unnecessary to record events anterior to the impugned proceedings. Suffice it to note that the second respondent, by way of a proclamation dated 30.03.2010, forcibly collected a sum of Rs.11,696/- from the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that, after adjustment of the tax payable by him, a sum of Rs.9,085/- is required to be refunded. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that, in case the said sum has been paid by the petitioner in excess, the Corporation would adjust the excess amount towards future tax dues. Learned counsel would assert that the annual property tax liability of the petitioner, towards the property in question, is Rs.2,462/-. Even if the said sum of Rs.2,462/- is taken to be the property tax payable per annum, the excess amount collected would exceed three years tax dues. We see no justification in permitting the second respondent to adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner towards future tax dues and, since the petitioner is said to have paid the property tax dues upto date, we consider it just and proper to direct the second respondent to refund the excess amount collected from the petitioner, towards property tax dues, within a period of three weeks from today. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice B.Prakash Rao _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan June 14, 2010 MAS.