IN HIGH COURT OF CHH^msSARH AT BILASPUR ^_ _ ^-.^- WRIT PETITION ^ N0.2-06^ QF 2011 PETITIONER ,^^ ^p- ,^^ \v ^y. "- \y' ,/ -e^ ^'. '>,'' .& .-.o' ^l' Vs RESPONbENTS ^ 6ass Memorial Centre, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, a society registered under the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 throu9h its Secretary/&irector Shri C. Tawar-es, son of Late A. Tawares, aged 62 years, resident of Opposite LIC Office, Near Raj Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C(5) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Department, D.K.S Bhawan ; : Mantralaya, Raipur (G6); 2. Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner, Municipal Gorporation, Raipur. 3. Zone Commissioner, Zone-4, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Municipal Corporation, Rai'pUF. PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA ,'?'^^ '^ ^'^ ^' ^ s-*j^ -^r^'i ! s'.•*..\v T^y itA»t« • Gass Memorial Centre, Jai S Chowk, Raipur State of Chhattisgarh 85 Ors. Petitlon u/Artide 226 pfthe Constitutioa of India Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for fhe State/respondent. No.l, on advance copy. (Passedon 18.4.2011] Heard on admission. 2. Thi.s petition has been ffled by the petitioner aggrieved by notice dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit property tax. LeaiTied counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat tlie petitioner is a charitable institution and m vlew of tfae activities which are being carried out, vide order dated 11.1.1999 (Annexm-e P-7), the petitioner was -exempted from payment of property tax under the provision contamed in Section 136 (e) of fhe Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. He submits that vide unpugned notice, the petitioner was ~»ta s^"""'3**?'. ^^-."^ ? -2- ^, 1 teS^ asked td subrait objections, if any, and tfae petitioner submitted his objections. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to appear before respondent No.4 on 22nd March, 2011. On that date, tfae petitioner appeared before respondent No.4 and made his subiaission, but, fhe petitioner was again dtrected to appear on 4.4.2011 along with records of the Society. On 4.4.2011, respondent No.4 has again directed fhe petitioner to appear on 18.4.2011 along witfa the entire records ofthe Society from the year 1951. 3. Leamed coi-msel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a charitable institution, is exempted from payment of property tax and earlier also, such an exemption has been graated to fhe petitioner. Therefore, the uupugned notice be quashed and the respondents be restrained from recovering property tax from the petitioner. 4. From the averments made by fhe petitioner in fhe petition and notice dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), it is revealed that tlie petitioner was required to submit his objection and objections have also been submitted by the petitloner. From tiie pleadings of the petition also, it appears fhat the respondent -authority have asked the petitioner to appear on various dates, presumably to satisfy fhemselves with regard to the claim of exemption raised by the petitioner. Lastiy, fhe petitioner has been directed to appear on 18.4.2011 with the entire records. The objections raised by the —— -3- petitioner are under active consideration of the respondent- authority. Therefore, m the opmion of this Court, at present, fhe petition is prematiire. The objection raised by Uie petitioner agaiast fhe iiaposition of property tax shall be duly considered by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur and fhe Municipal Corporation shall also take a decision tn fhat regard by passing speakin^ order. In case, the petitioner's grievance is not redressed and stiLl subsists, it would be open for fhe petitioner to talce recourse to appropriate remedy as may be available to htm under the law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, fhe petition is finally disposed of. Praveezi. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^