K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2832 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2832 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2832 OF 2008 Bai Hemkorbai Devidas & Devidas ) Purbhoodas Charities & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. ) Mumbai & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Viraj Tulzapurkar Sr.Advocate i/by Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Singhvi Sr.Advocate for the respondents. ---- Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 8.4.2009. PC 1. The petitioners are challenging the assessment of tax on the basis of ratable value of the property right from the year 2005. So far as the year 2005 is concerned, admittedly notice dated 28.3.2006 was given indicating the ratable value fixed and stating "if you wish to complain against, the increase, you should do so in writing within fifteen days of the date of pasting under Section 163 of the said Act." According to the petitioners they received this notice on 31.3.2006. According to the Corporation however, this was pasted on the same day i.e. 28.3.2006. The petitioners submitted a complaint on 12.4.2006. The complaint reads as under :- : 2 : . We are in receipt of your letter dated 28/3/2006 on 31/3/2006. Copy of your letter is enclosed herewith. . With reference to your above letter we have to inform you that ours is a Charitable Trust duly registered with the Charity Commissioner of Mumbai. . We have objection against the said increase and requesting you not to increase the taxes/ratable value as proposed by you. 2. Perusal of the above quoted complaint makes it clear that there is no reason given for opposing the increase in the ratable value except that the petitioner is a Charitable trust. That reason is totally irrelevant so far as fixing of ratable value is concerned. On this being pointed out, the only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that if the petitioners would have been called for oral hearing by the Corporation then they would have submitted their objections to fixation of the ratable value. This submission is devoid of any merits because the petitioners were called upon to state their objections in writing. The objection was rejected by the Corporation on the ground that it was lodged beyond 15 days. There is dispute between the parties whether objection was lodged within 15 days or not. In our opinion, even assuming that the reason given by the Corporation for rejecting the objection that it was not lodged within time is incorrect, in our opinion, no other : 3 : order could have been passed because really speaking there was no objection raised to the fixation of the ratable value. 3. It appears that the petitioners then filed appeal before the Small Causes Court. There was delay in filing that appeal. Therefore, application was made for condonation of delay. That application was rejected on 19.8.2006. On 3.8.2006 communication was sent to the petitioners by the Corporation informing them that their complaint relating to the earlier year has been rejected. However, it was stated "you may, however, renew your application for modification of rateable value of the aforesaid property for the ensuring official year 2007-2008, so as to reach this office between 20.11.2006 to 14.12.2006 when the matter will be considered on merits." Admittedly, petitioners did not raise any objection though their appeal filed before the Small Causes Court relating to the earlier year was already rejected. The petitioners applied for restoration of their appeal before the Small Causes Court. The appeal was not restored. The petitioners have not followed their remedy against the order of the Small Causes Court. They have filed the Writ petition in this Court. In our opinion, conduct of the petitioners disentitles the petitioners for entertaining the petition by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction. At no : 4 : point of time despite of being given opportunity by the Corporation the petitioners have lodged any objection to the ratable value fixed by the Corporation. In our opinion, the petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court just to avoid paying taxes to the Corporation. Petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)