THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12411 of 2011 June 06, 2011 Between: The Hindupur Tax Payers’ Association, Hindupur Represented by its President, P.A.Satish ... Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hyderabad And another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12411 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Hindupur Tax Payers’ Association (hereafter called, the association) represented by its President filed the instant writ petition. The association seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the undisclosed number of separate endorsements issued by the second respondent to the members of the association demanding property tax as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. By these endorsements, the second respondent rejected the revision petitions filed by the members of the association against the upward revision of property tax in Hindupur Municipality. The association was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was formed for the object of seeking redressal from the authorities in the matter of levy of property tax by the Municipality. All of them own residential houses or commercial buildings in Hindupur Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that in 2002, in accordance with Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Assessment of Taxes) Rules, 1990 (the Taxation Rules), the Government restricted the revision of property tax to 75% of the tax existing rate as on 31.3.2002 in respect of residential buildings, and 100% and 150% in respect of non-residential buildings. In 2007, the Government revised the tax in respect of non-residential buildings only to the extent of 50% exempting residential buildings from such revision. The second respondent, however, issued special notices to the members of the association for enhancing property tax during 2010. After receiving these notices, all the members submitted objections. These objections have been rejected by the impugned endorsements. The association would contend that the enhancement of property tax is arbitrary, exorbitant and manifestly unjust. The members of the association, who actually received special notices, are not petitioners before us. It is the admitted case that after receiving special notices the members have submitted objections, presumably revision petitions, to the second respondent who rejected them by the impugned endorsements. Therefore the members who are liable to pay property tax are alone aggrieved persons and, we are afraid, the association cannot maintain the writ petition. Further, under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules in Schedule-II to the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, an appeal is provided to the Appellate Commissioner appointed by the Government against an order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 14 thereof. The members could have filed appeals, but they did not do so. Furthermore, when the objections of the members were rejected in November, 2010 the writ petition is filed only in the last week of April, 2011. In the background of the case, the delay of five months is crucial. The Counsel for the petitioner association is not able to convince us as to why upward revision of the property tax is arbitrary. No details are given in the affidavit as to the existing property tax, when it was revised and the other relevant particulars for appreciating the contention that the enhancement of the tax is exorbitant. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the wit petition. If so advised, the association may approach the Government for necessary redressal in this regard. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 06, 2011 YS