1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 497 OF 2010 Laxmibai Mangal Pange and another ).. Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ) and others ).. Respondents Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w Mr. D.D. Mehta i/b D.M. Legal Associates for the Petitioners. Mrs. V.S. Gharapure for the Respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE 2010 P.C. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenges the levy of LUC taxes in respect of the Building No.2 assessed under Ward No. PS-14257B bearing Account No.05-1039-55-1. 2. The Petitioners’ contention is that the demand is illegal in as much as the same is made for an area which is much in excess of the actual area of Building No.2 and that the amount of arrears of taxes and sewerage taxes already paid in respect of the said property is not adjusted by the Municipal Corporation. 2 3. Earlier we had directed the Respondents to file affidavit in reply. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents seeks time to file such reply. However, in response to a query of the Court as to how much amount is outstanding, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed on record statement dated 29th March 2010 of the Asstt. Assessor & Collector P/South indicating Rs.18,28,676/- as the outstanding property tax in respect of the subject matter of this petition. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further clarifies that the statement pertains to the subject matter of this Writ Petition but the number is wrongly mentioned as Writ Petition No.487 of 2010 instead of 497 of 2010. It is accordingly directed that the said statement shall be treated as showing the outstanding property tax in respect of the property which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. 4. As transpires from the said statement, the amount outstanding from the Petitioners in respect of the property in question is Rs.18,28,676/- as on 29th March 2010. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the said demand. It appears that in the past the Petitioners have been making representations to the Respondent-Corporation making a grievance against the alleged illegal demand. 3 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that instead of entertaining such controversy in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such dispute ought to be decided by the forum under Section 217(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Since the Appeal is to be filed before the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, we direct that if the petitioners deposits with the respondent Municipal Corporation the aforesaid amount of Rs.18,28,676/- within ten days from today and if the Appeal is filed within fifteen days from today, the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai shall entertain such appeal on merits and decide the matter in accordance with law without raising any objection about limitation. 6. If any amount of interest is payable by the petitioners on the aforesaid amount till date of deposit, the interest shall also be worked out within one week from the date of receipt of this order and the learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners shall pay said amount of interest also within one week from the date of intimation to them. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes it clear that the amounts will be deposited as directed above without prejudice to 4 the petitioners’ rights and contentions in the appeal which the petitioners propose to file, but the petitioners are constrained to make such a statement as the investment made by the petitioners running into crores of rupees is lying idle on account of the respondent Municipal Corporation withholding the Occupation Certificate on the ground of non-payment of LUC taxes. 8. In view of the above, since the petitioners have agreed to pay the aforesaid amount of taxes without prejudice to their rights and contentions, we direct that upon the petitioners paying the said amounts, the Respondent-Corporation shall issue the Occupation Certificate within one week from the date of deposit of the amounts. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Hamdust service of this order is permitted. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.