1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.941 OF 2008 Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Respondents Mr.Prashant Chavan with Deepa Kamat i/b. P.S.Legal for petitioner Ms.A.A.Joshi for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th April 2008 P.C. . This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against a 2 Notice of demand. 2. The case of petitioner is that it owns an immovable property which has been more particularly described in para 1 of the petition. The petitioner has pointed out that a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.49,75,820/- was received. The notice proceeds to allege that the petitioners are in arrears of municipal assessment charges payable in respect of two advertisements. It is contended that notice threatens coercive measures including disruption and disconnection of the water supply to the Hospital where petitioners are rendering medical services and aid. The respondents have filed an affidavit in reply stating that the notice has been issued as one "Pinnacle", an advertising agency, which had erected two hoardings on which advertisements of the petitioners were displayed, is in arrears of licence fees payable to B.M.C. They have to receive a sum of Rs.58 lakhs 3 approximately which includes monthly licence fees. Para 5 of the petition proceeds on the basis that the fees are to be paid by the said Pinnacle to the respondents. 3. All that is stated in the affidavit is that a notice dated 20th February 2004 under section 155 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was issued and petitioners were called upon to give details and furnish particulars to the owner of the hoardings. The affidavit proceeds to state that M/s.Pinnacle Advertisement Pvt.Ltd. are the owners of the hoardings. The primary liability may be that of the person putting up the hoarding, but, this is a part of property tax and, therefore, the petitioners are also liable is the contention. Thus, the submission is that primary liability is, may be that of the said advertisement agency but petitioners were liable to furnish details and if the details are not furnished, then, even they can be proceeded with 4 in accordance with law. 4. Apart from contending that the petition involves disputed questions of facts, it is also urged that the Advertisement agency must be joined as party respondent. 5. Petitioners are aggrieved by the final notice, copy of which is annexed as Exh.A. It proceeds to state that the amount of tax which has been computed is outstanding and due and payable and the petitioner must pay the same. There is substance in the contention of Mr.Chavan that without anything on record, straight away demand notice is issued. There is no compliance with the principles of natural justice much less any adjudication demamonstrating as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the tax. In such circumstances, the least that was expected from the respondents is that they would give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 5 after considering their objections to the demand, pass appropriate orders. 6. I called upon Ms.Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation to take instructions with regard to the hearing to be afforded to the petitioners and whether such opportunity can be granted at this stage. Upon instructions, she makes a statement that Joint Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) of the respondent, Municipal Corporation is the authority, who considers the objections to the assessment, levy and valuation as far as property and other taxes are concerned. He would be the appropriate authority to decide the objections. 7. Upon further enquiry as to whether Joint Municipal Commissioner would hear the petitioners on the date and time which would be intimated in advance, she makes a statement that the Joint Municipal Commissioner would do so. 6 8. In such circumstances, it is directed that the Joint Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) should consider the objections raised by the petitioners and also grant them opportunity of hearing. He shall pass orders thereafter. Until then, the respondents should not take any coercive steps or enforce the demand vide impugned demand notice Exh.A. 9. The petitioner to appear before the Joint Municipal Commissioner (Improvement) on 28th April 2008 and Joint Municipal Commissioner after hearing petitioners so also allowing them to raise objections in writing pass a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of appearance. Until the Joint Municipal Commissioner renders his decision in terms aforesaid, the demand is kept in abeyance and no coercive measures be initiated. All objections 7 insofar as merits of the levy, Assessment and valuation are kept open for being raised before the Joint Municipal Commissioner. Petition disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 10. Mr.Chavan states that all objections will be removed and the petition will be numbered before 22nd April 2008. Needless to state that until the same are removed and petition numbered, certified copy will not be issued. However, all concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)