1 wp1453-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1453 OF 2011 M/s.Chemical Terminal Trombay Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay .. Respondents Ms.Rubia Taneja for petitioner Mrs.S.M.Modle for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th September 2011. P.C.: 1] This is a matter where the petitioners are disputing rateable value on the basis of which the property taxes are levied, assessed and collected by the Corporation. 2] Its argument that the petitioner had no notice of the revised rateable value and particularly of the entries made in the 2 wp1453-11.doc assessment book as the special notice was not served on them. The petitioners are claiming to be entitled to such notice on the basis that the property taxes have been computed flat-wise/ unit- wise. Therefore, when the notice states that it was served firstly on the landlord/ owner and, thereafter, on the society that is non compliance with the statutory requirement and particularly under section 162 to 167 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 3] In the affidavit in reply it has been pointed out that the subject property is assessed as house and office building having ground plus nine upper floors. The rateable value was increased to Rs. 1,46,91,045/- for non residential from 1st April 2009 to 9th June 2009 and Rs.1,75,84,325/- from 10th June 2010 onwards. Accordingly, the special notice was served on the society. The society did not register any complaint within the stipulated period of 15 days whereas the petitioners made a complaint on 30th April 2010. This letter was replied by the Corporation and it was pointed out that special notice was served on the society and the society was called upon to lodge its objections but no such objections have been 3 wp1453-11.doc lodged and even the petitioner did not take any steps in that behalf. 4] Now the property taxes to the tune of Rs.4,64,67,872/- for the period ending 31st March 2012 are outstanding and payable. 5] To my mind, a perusal of the petition and affidavit in reply would indicate that there are disputed questions of facts involved. If the petitioners are aggrieved and agitated by the fact that their complaint has been rejected without compliance with statutory provisions, then, in terms of the remedy that is provided by law viz., filing of an appeal before the Court of Small Causes, nothing prevents the petitioners from raising appropriate contentions before the Small Causes Court. A Writ petition is not their remedy because disputed questions of facts are involved, inasmuch as petitioners claim to have been assessed individually, whereas the Corporation argues otherwise. Petitioners claim that they have not received any notice whereas the Corporation points out that they are not entitled to any such notice, when the legal entity viz., the cooperative housing society has been put to notice and it did not protest. If individual protests were to be lodged, they were also required to be 4 wp1453-11.doc lodged within specified time. The consequences, according to the Corporation of all this, is that the rateable value has not been challenged. 6] To my mind, the remedy that is provided by law is such that the petitioners can challenge the legality of the levy as also the assessment and valuation of taxes. Merely because the petitioners will have to comply with the conditions imposed by section 217 is no ground to interfere in Writ Jurisdiction and that too involving highly disputed questions of facts. It is also apparent that the Individual occupants like the Petitioner are aggrieved by the fact that the Co-operative Housing Society did not intimate them about the Demand of the Corporation and its consequences in law. For all these reasons, this petition fails and particularly finding that petitioners have an adequate and equally efficacious remedy in law. The apprehension that the appeal will not be entertained now by the Court of Small Causes is taken care of by directing the Corporation that if such an appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Corporation will not raise any plea or objection with regard to limitation and the Small Causes 5 wp1453-11.doc Court can then entertain it and decide it in accordance with law. In such circumstances, by permitting the petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy within the time specified in this order, the petition is disposed of. All contentions in relation to the legality of the levy and assessment so also the valuation of taxes are kept open. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)