* 1 * WP-1649-2011 23. Nov. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2011 Khopoli Municipal Council ..... Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & anr ..... Respondents * * * * * Mr. Rajesh Datar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. P.M. Bhansali i/by. Hegde & Associates, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State-respondent no.2 CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23rd November, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad in Criminal Revision Application No. 52 of 2009 whereby the judgment and order dated 4th June, 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khalapur, District-Raigad in Municipal Appeal No. 3 of 2002 was confirmed. 2. Respondent no.1, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has filed Municipal Appeal to challenge the increase in the assessment of * 2 * WP-1649-2011 23. Nov. 2011 municipal taxes by the petitioner from Rs.11,688/- to Rs.63,892/- for the period 1992-93. The challenge by respondent no.1 to the revision of municipal taxes was on the ground that in the enquiry dated 22nd July, 1992 conducted by the petitioner into the increase in taxes, respondent no.1 not was given an opportunity of hearing. The second ground was that the increase in the taxes was unreasonable and excessive. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class found the first ground of challenge in favour of the petitioner and the second against the petitioner. The enquiry in the present petition is therefore restricted to the question whether the increase in the taxes by the petitioner to the extent of six times is reasonable and fair. 3. The lower appellate Court found that the only document produced by the petitioner before it justifying enhancement to the extent of six times was the document at Exhibit-26. It found that though the document mentions some calculations, there was nothing on it to connect it to respondent no.1. The paper did not contain the name of respondent no.1. It did not bear the signature of any person. It merely had stamp of Chief Officer, Khopoli Nagar Parishad. Nobody had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class to explain the document at Exhibit-26. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rejected the document at Exhibit-26. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioners before the lower appellate Court that there is a canteen run by respondent no.1 in the premises. There is a paan stall in the premises and * 3 * WP-1649-2011 23. Nov. 2011 respondent no.1 also earns revenue by exhibiting advertisements on the property. The Court, however, found that all these activities had been carried out by respondent no.1 in the premises at earlier point of time also. The Sessions Court while hearing the Revision Application accepted the reasons given by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and dismissed the Revision Application. I have perused the orders of both the Courts below and find that the orders are supported by the material on record. The claim of the petitioner, being unsupported by any material, the lower appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal to set aside the order of enhancement of municipal taxes. No interference to the orders is required. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]