( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5188 OF 2009 The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar Through Commissioner. ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Collector Office, Ahmednagar and another. ..Respondents Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATED : 09-06-2009 P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel Mr. V.P. Latange, for the appellant and Mr. M.L. Dharashive, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. 2. Present second appeal is preferred by the original ( 2 ) defendant No. 2 against the judgment and decree dated 15-11-2008 passed by the District Judge-1, Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No. 84/2007 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 01-02-2007 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in R.C.S. No. 205/2006. The appellant is the original defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1 is the original defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 205/2006 challenging the demand bill of Rs. 4840/- bearing No. 1/215 dated 26-06-2006 issued by defendant No. 2 under Section 12 of The Maharashtra Tax on Buildings (with larger Residential Premises) (Re-enacted) Act, 1979. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Act is not made applicable to Ahmednagar area. On the basis of this submission, the trial Court decreed the suit restraining the defendants from recovering tax under the said Act without compliance of Section 3(b) thereof. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 01-02-2007, defendant No. 2 preferred appeal and the said appeal also dismissed by the District Judge-1, Ahmednagar ( 3 ) by the judgment and decree dated 15-11-2008. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendant NO. 2 fairly stated that the State Government has not issued any notification as required under Section 1(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Tax on Buildings (with larger Residential Premises )(Re-enacted) Act, 1979. Section 1 of the said Act reads as under. "1.(1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Tax on Building (with larger Residential Premises) (Re- enacted) Act 1979. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra. (3)(a) It shall, in the first instance, be deemed to have come into force on the 29th day of April 1974 in the Corporation area of each of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the Municipal Corporation of the cities of Pune, Solapur, and Kolhapur and the Corporation of the city of Nagpur. (b) The State Government may bring it into force in such area or areas of the Municipal Corporation of other city or cities and with effect from such date or dates as the State Government may by ( 4 ) notification in the official gazette specify; and different dates may be specified for different such area or areas." 4. It is crystal clear from the reading of Section 1(3) (b) that unless and until notification is issued by the Government in official gazette, said Act cannot be made applicable to any Municipal Corporation. When it is admitted position that the State Government has not issued any notification as required by the Act, the appellant have no right to levy taxes under Section 12 of the said Act. Both the courts below held that the appellant have no right to issue tax bill under Section 12 of the said Act unless and until the said Act is made applicable to the appellant. Except this, there is no other point raised by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present second appeal. 5. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( 5 ) 6. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and the same is also dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUN09/sa319.09