IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8326 of 2008 Between: Koneru Venugopal, S/o. Koneru Venkataiah R/o. D.No.17/620 Up-stairs, Habibullah Street, Kadapa- 516001. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not reducing the quantum of the house tax from Rs.3,878/- to Rs.1,511/- based on the nature, age and condition of the residential house building as per the Rules-3,5,6 and Sub Rules 3 to 7 of Rule-7 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 in pursuance of Special Notice Under Section-220(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and subsequent endorsement dated 10.07.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, violation of Rules - 3,5,6, and Sub Rules 3 to 7 of Rule-7 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 and in violation of Section-220 & 223 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondent to reduce the quantum of house tax reduce quantum of the house tax from Rs.3,878/- to Rs.1,511/- based on the nature, age and condition of the residential house building as per the Rules. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following: ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao): Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.I. Newton, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Kadapa Municipal Corporation and at their request, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondent in not reducing the quantum of house tax from Rs.3,878/- to Rs.1,511/- based on the nature, age and condition of the residential house building, as per the Rules 3, 5 6 and Sub-Rules 3 to 7 of Rule 7 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990, in pursuance of the Special Notice under Section 220 (2) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and subsequent endorsement dated 10.07.2007, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent to reduce the quantum of house tax as prayed for. The petitioner owns a house bearing No.17/620. A notice was issued on 12.06.2007 by the respondent to the petitioner demanding to pay Rs.3,878/- towards house tax for the half-year and also asked to submit his objections, if any, before the Commissioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 15.06.2007. Later, he submitted his objections through notice, dated 27.06.2007 disputing the quantum of tax amount. On 10.07.2007 the respondent made an endorsement stating that the case of the petitioner shall not be considered unless the arrears of tax is paid, but the objections filed by the petitioner have not disposed of so far either to allow or reject the same. The dispute pertaining to the previous assessment of tax also has not been decided by the respondent. Thereafter, a representation was made by the petitioner to the respondent on 11.01.2008 requesting to reduce the quantum of amount of house tax from Rs.3,878/- to Rs.1,511/- based on the nature, age and condition of the residential house building and since no action has been taken so far. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the objections filed by the petitioner are pending before the respondent, the question of making the final assessment or demand has been made as per the impugned notice does not arise and therefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kadapa Municipal Corporation appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the endorsement made by the respondent on the objections filed by the petitioner on 10.07.2008 clearly shows that the case of the petitioner shall not be considered unless the arrears of house tax is paid and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that after disposal of the objections filed by the petitioner only, the respondent is entitled to demand the house tax. Therefore, till disposal of the objections filed by the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 12.06.2007 is liable to be set aside. However, having regard to the said endorsement made by the respondent on 10.07.2007, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay all the arrears of house tax. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears of admitted house tax within a period of six weeks from today. On such payment is being made, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner. Till disposal of the objections filed by the petitioner, the impugned demand notice dated 12.06.2007 is set aside. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 17.04.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa. 2. 2 CCs to S.C. for Municipal Corporation 2. 2 CD copies