1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4506 OF 2004 Thakur Electromechanical Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Rita Joshi i/by Mr.A.D.Shetty for the Petitioner. Mr.Kiran K.Gandhi i/by M/s.Little & Co.for Respondent No.2. Mr.Jitendra H.Oak with Mr.A.A.Garge for Respondent No.3. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 8th July, 2010 P.C. : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Bill dated June 6, 2002 at Exh.”L”, Warrant of Attachment dated 15th July, 2002 at Exh.”M”, Notices dated September 2, 2002, August 30, 2002 at Exhibit “O” and March 30, 2003 at Exh.”S” to the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By bill dated June 6, 2002 the Municipal Corporation of the City of Navi Mumbai (for short NMMC) has raised demand for payment of property taxes. Despite demanding the amount of property taxes in writing from the petitioner, since there was no payment, warrant of attachment was issued on July 15, 2002. This was followed by notice dated August 30, 2002 for attaching the property appended thereto, and the further notice dated September 2, 2002 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of taxes alongwith the interest, penalties and recovery costs within 7 days. This was followed by the 2 attachment of the properties of the petitioner by issuing the notice dated March 30, 2003. 3. The petitioner challenges the action of the NMMC basically on the ground that the petitioner is lessee of the MIDC and is not liable to pay taxes to the NMMC. The NMMC has no power to levy the property taxes under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short the BPMC Act) without providing any amenities or facilities within the area covered by the MIDC. The reliance is placed upon clause 7 of the Schedule 1 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MR & TP Act). It is also contended that the petitioner’s property is not included within the municipal limits of the NMMC. 4. The petition was heard for admission on February 23, 2005. Upon hearing both sides, the Court was pleased to issue Rule and directed that this petition be heard alongwith the Writ Petition No.2787 of 2001. In so far as interim relief is concerned, the petitioners were directed to pay tax as demanded subject to the final order in this petition. 5. This petition was heard alongwith the Writ Petition No.2787 of 2001. Identical contentions were raised in the said petition. We have repelled all the contentions raised in that petition. For the reasons set out in the judgment in Writ Petition No.2787 of 2001, this petition fails. 6. The Petitioner is however at liberty to file appeal U/s.406 of the BPMC Act within a period of eight weeks from today. In case the appeal is preferred within a period of eight weeks from today, the learned Judge shall decide the said appeal in accordance with law by taking into consideration the fact 3 that the petitioner was bonafide prosecuting the present petition in this Court. 7. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)