VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.12 OF 2002 AND WRIT PETITION No. 235 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2304 OF 2004 Ananta D. Deshmukh & Ors. Petitioners Vs. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Deptt., Respondents Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. Mr. S. A. Sawant with H. D. Kode for Petitioner in PIL No. 12/2002 with W.P. No. 235/2002. Mrs. P. S. Cardoza, AGP for State Respondent. Mr. R. G. Ketkar, for respondent No.4. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : APRIL 16, 2008. PC :- . Two petitions have been filed challenging inclusion of certain villages into municipal limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. These villages have been made part of the municipal corporation in the year 2001. Seven years have already passed. The Municipal Corporation has already taken control of these areas. As submitted at the bar elections have been held and villages are being represented by the - 2 - corporators. Even otherwise as a general rule, the courts have been slow in interfering into the activities of the State in the matters by which areas are included or excluded from various local bodies. In this connection, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Supreme Court AIR 1990 Supreme Court 261. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent can be quashed on the ground that it was discriminatory as some villages similarly situated as the villages to which the petitioners belong were excluded. On such grounds, court would not be able to set aside the impugned notification. He further contended that since the petitioners are villagers are only living by doing agriculture and now the rate of taxes they have to pay is the same which has to be paid by a person living in the Pune city. Therefore, the Corporation should be directed to levy tax on the people from these villages which are now included in the Corporation at the different rates than at the rate the people in Pune city are taxed. We cannot give such directions as it has been consistently held by the courts including the Supreme Court that the rate of taxes, area of taxation and the commodity that are taxed, has to be levied by the appropriate bodies. In the present cas the Corporation. For these reasons, we do not find merit in the petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. - 3 - 2. In view of dismissal of petitions, civil application does not survive, which is also accordingly dismissed. Sd/ [ BILAL NAZKI, J. ] Sd/ [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]