1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.202/2010 Sumer Castle Building No.ABC CHS Ltd and Anr ..Petitioners. vs. Thane Municipal Corporation & ors. ..Respondents. Mr Gaurav Joshi with Ashish Kamat and Ashok Purohit i/b Ashok Purohit and Co. for the Petitioners. Mr N.R.Bubna, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 12TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The complaint of the petitioners who are registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, is against the 2 assessment of property tax of club house, swimming pool,open car parking, society office, etc. It is being revised right from the year 2005. That demand, however, was issued, admittedly, in the year 2008. The objection was raised on 10th July,2008 which was supplemented on 30th July,2008. The case of the petitioners is that an order on their objection after granting them an opportunity of being heard has not been made by the Corporation. Whereas it is the case of the Corporation that an order on the objection filed by the petitioners was made on 9.1.2009 and a decision was taken to reduce the property tax by 50% treating the club house, swimming pool and society office,etc,as commercial premises. The complaint of the petitioners is that they have also raised objection that the assessment could not have been revised retrospectively from the year 2005. That contention of the petitioners does not appear to have been decided by the Corporation. It also appears to be a common ground that an oral hearing was not given to the petitioners and reasoned order has not been made. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that the petitioners are willing to deposit, to show their bonafides, approximately 50% the amount of property tax for the year 2008-09 and 2009-2010 as calculated by the Corporation without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The petitioners have 3 already deposited an amount of Rs.1 lac. In our opinion, therefore, in these circumstances, considering that the petitioners are co-operative societies, the following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER: The petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lac with the respondent-Corporation within a period of two weeks from today. Thus, the total amount deposited by the petitioners without prejudice to rights and contentions would be Rs. 6 lac. On the amount being deposited the order dated 9.1.2009 made by the Corporation shall stand set aside. The petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Assessor Officer on 8.2.2010. Thereafter, the Assessor Officer shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and make a reasoned order on all the objections filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the Corporation shall be free to issue demand notices on the basis of the order that the Assessor Officer may make. Till the fresh order is made in accordance with this order, recovery proceedings pursuant to the 4 previous demand notices shall remain stayed. The Corporation shall be at liberty to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioners in accordance with the fresh order that may be made. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)