1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3229 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 M/s.Reliance Communications Ltd., having its registered office at H Block 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Navi Mumbai 400 710 and having its local office at Reliance House, No.6,Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006 represented by its Power of Attorney T.Ramasubramanian : Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George Chennai – 9 2. The Secretary Information Technlogy Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 3. Mayanur Panchayat represented by its President Mayanur – 639 108 Karur District : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the third respondent herein pertaining to the order dated 20.5.2010, demanding Tax on Base Trans-receiver Station Tower of the petitioner and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.AV.K.Ezhilmani For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this Petition praying to quash the order, dated 20.5.2010 passed by the third respondent herein, demanding Tax on Base Trans-receiver Station Tower of the petitioner. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the erection of the towers are new arrea and it is called Base Trans-receiver Station Tower and it does not come under the category of house tax, but the order is passed under Section 171 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Aggrieved agaisnt the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would point out that any order passed under Section 171 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is an appeallable order, as per Rule 24(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Assessment Rules, 1999. He would further submit that without exhausting alternative remedy, he cannot challenge the order by way of this Writ Petition and he can only to seek his remedy by filing a revision. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point for consideration is that whether the impugned order is amenable for an alternative remedy. The petitioner has challenged the demand notice itself. By an order dated 09.03.2010, this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos. 2819 to 2841 of 2010, 2000, 2001, 2003 to 2006 and 1771 to 1780 of 2010, directed the petitioners to treat the proceedings of the third respondent demand to pay the tax as a show cause notice and remitted the petitioner to reply for the same and also directed the respondent to consider the same and pass orders. Pursuant to the earlier order, the petitioner submitted his reply and that was considered by the Panchayat Council and ultimately, the orders have been passed levying tax and demanding the tax, as per G.O.Ms.No. 255. This levy of tax is now challenged by way of this Writ Petition. 7. Admittedly, as against the levy of tax, there is an appeallable remedy is available as per Rule 24(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Assessment Rules, 1999 and the said Rule is extracted hereunder:- ''Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Village Panchyat under clause (a) or (b) may prefer a petition of revision within thirty days after receipt of orders of the Village Panchayat to the Inspector. The Inspector shall pass orders on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 such revision petition on the merits of the claims within a reasonable time and such orders of the Inspector shall be final.'' 8. It is very clear from the above said Rules, there is an altertanative remedy which is available to the petitioner and it is open for the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned under the relevant provision for revision, wtihin a period of 30 days after receipt of orders of the Village Panchayat to the Inspector. Without filing the above revision as contemplated under the rules, the Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition is disposd of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George Chennai – 9 2. The Secretary Information Technlogy Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 3. The President Mayanur Panchayat Mayanur – 639 108 Karur District +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.7383) W.P.(MD).No.3229 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 21.03.2011 vsg NSV/25.3.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/