1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1723 OF 2009 Laghoo Udyog Bharati Organisation, Jalna, an association incorporated Under the provisions of the Companies Act, through its authorized signatory, Shri. Jignesh s/o Ramesh Bhai Shah, Age-37 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Ambikaniwas, Near Somesh Tempo, Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Directorate of Municipal Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) Jalna Municipal Council, A Body Corporate under the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965, Through its Chief Officer, 3) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through its Officer, Sub-Division, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.S.V. Adwant Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.H.K. Munde Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri.S.S. Dande Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner organization is representing cause of 103 persons who are having their structures in M.I.D.C. area of Jalna town. In the year 2005, Jalna Municipal Council decided to charge property tax for the properties situated in the M.I.D.C. area. The Municipal Council, Jalna issued a public notice in this regard, which was published on 22nd September, 2005 in daily newspaper "Pukar". 3 3. In short, the grievance of the Petitioners is that the mandatory procedure envisaged under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short 'the Municipal Council Act"), more particularly, the provisions as prescribed under Section 113 onwards were not followed. It was submitted that individual notices were not given by the Municipal Council. The notices issued by Municipal Council in respect of charging of property taxes were not widely circulated in the papers having wide circulation in Jalna township. The Petitioners were deprived and handicapped to raise objections in detail. The Petitioner did not receive bill of demand and whatever documents in respect of bill of demands were received by some of the members of the Petitioners, were found to be lying in the compound of their premises. The bills and notices were not served in the strict sense of the provisions of law. Learned counsel Shri. Adwant 4 further submitted that the Municipal Council did not disclose the method by which the ratable value was arrived at in determining property taxes of the Petitioners. The mandatory provisions of the Municipal Council Act were flouted, therefore, the Petitioners decided to approach this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri. Adwant, learned counsel submits that though the counsel for the Municipal Council states that some of the Petitioners filed written objections and engaged lawyers, but there is no record which was brought to the notice of the Petitioners that their objections were dealt with in accordance with law. The learned counsel Shri. Adwant placed reliance on the following Judgments in support of the contentions as stated above: (1) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 425, (2) East India Commercial Co. 5 Pvt. Ltd. vs. Corporation of Calcutta, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1789, (3) Kantilal Dharshi Desai vs. Karmala Nagar Palika and others, 2000 (10) L.J. Soft, 84, (4) Guntur Municipal Council vs. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 353, (5) Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 541, (6) Balkrishna Vora vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, 1963 M.L.J. 325, (7) The Municipal Council, Aurangabad vs. Shivaji Sindhi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 1980, B.C.R., 579, (8) Municipal Council, Morshi vs. Tulshiram, 1977 M.L.J. 735, 6 (9) Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad vs. Oriental Fire General Insurance Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1994 Guj. 167, (10) Dr. Satish Dattatraya Shiyalkar vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, 2002 (2) Mh. L.J. 619, (11) Ketan Ranjit Maaganlal vs. Panaji Municipal Corporation, 2000(3) Mh. L.J. 233, (12) Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamalkumar and another, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1321, (13) New Manek Chowk Spg. and Wvg. Mills vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1801, (14) Kalyan Municipal Council and others vs. Usha Paper Products (P) Ltd., (1988) 3 S.C.C. 306, 7 (15) Bhagwantrai and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 440, (16) Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 4 S.C.C. 577, (17) Food Corporation of India vs. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 1 S.C.C. 291, (18) Bidhannagar (Salt lake) Welfare Association vs. Central Valuation Board and others, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2276, (19) Balbirsingh vs. M.I.D.C., (1985) 1 S.C.C. 167, (20) Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court, 3044(1), (21) Bharat singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 8 (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 534. 4. In substance, learned counsel Shri. Munde appearing for the Municipal Council, instructed by responsible officers and the Chief Officer, who is present in the Court, submitted that all the necessary legal formalities were completed in assessing the liabilities of the Petitioners to pay tax on building and land occupied by them in the M.I.D.C. area. The counsel submits that earlier one organization from the M.I.D.C. area had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5900 of 2006 raising challenge to authority of the Municipal Council to charge property tax on the buildings and land situated in M.I.D.C. area. By Judgment and Order dated 27th April, 2010 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ.) the said objection was negatived and the Writ Petition came to be disposed of. 9 5. Learned counsel Shri. Adwant at the inception submitted that in this Petition the Petitioners are not pressing challenge to the authority of the Municipal Council to charge property tax in respect of building/ property situated in M.I.D.C. area owned and occupied by the Petitioners. 6. Learned counsel Shri. Munde submitted that more than 70 members of the Petitioner organization had filed written objections, which are mainly related to the authority of the Municipal Council to charge property tax. About 53 persons engaged lawyer who had argued their cases. The Municipal Council has maintained register to this effect. Their objections were dealt with and therefore the Municipal Council decided to issue bill of demand. As the Petitioner did not pay tax, warrants of attachment were issued being no alternative left with the Municipal Council. The counsel submits that this Petition in this form, is not at all maintainable. The Petitioners are 10 individually aggrieved and therefore statutory forum in the shape of alternate remedy is provided under the provisions of the Municipal Council Act. All the issues can be raised by filing appeal, which remedy the Petitioners did not avail of. The counsel submits that there is abnormal delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court when bill of demands were served on the Petitioners long back. The counsel submits that there is sufficient material with the Municipal Council to negate the challenge raised by the Petitioners in determining ratable value of the property. The counsel submits that this could be gone into in the appeals if filed by the Petitioners wherein disputed questions could be raised, evidence could be led and all the issues of this nature could be sorted out which are sought to be addressed in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Shri. Munde, learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments in support of his contentions: 11 (1) Dagdabai Manakchand vs. Municipal Council, Aurangabad, 1982 Mh. L.J. 866, (2) Kamalnayan Nanumal Jain vs.Municipal Council, Amnalner, 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 171, (3) Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad vs. Shaikh Mohammed s/o Shaikh Yusufsaheb, 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 964, (4) Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(2) Mh. L.J. 107, (5) Satyanarayan s/o Modulal Dayma and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(4) Mh. L.J. 544, (6) Adhunik Synthetic Limited vs. Municipal Council, Jalgaon through its Chief Officer and another, 2002 (1) Bom. C.R. 115, 12 (7) Gandhi Agencies vs. Municipal Council & another, 1995 (2) Mh. L.J. 76, 7. We had extensively heard this Petition which was pending since last more than 1 and 1/2 years. We have gone through the Judgments cited by both the sides. Issue in respect of authority of Municipal Council to charge property tax in respect of properties of the Petitioners situated in the M.I.D.C. area has already been answered in Writ Petition No.5900 of 2006 by Judgment and Order dated 27th April, 2010 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ.). We therefore, do not address that issue as the Petitioners even have not raised that issue before this Court. 8. The fact remains that the Municipal Council has authority to levy the property tax and the Petitioners are duty bound to pay the tax. The question now remains is as to whether the taxes 13 which are demanded from the Petitioners, have been demanded in accordance with law. There cannot be any dispute that mandatory procedure established by law, is required to be followed by statutory body, public body, local government when the taxes are sought to be recovered from the citizens. Adequate notices, appropriate opportunity of hearing, application of mind while dealing with the objections raised by individuals, are basic guarantees which the citizens expect before the Authority who levies the tax and issues bill of demand to the residents of the respective locality. 9. In the facts of the case, the Municipal Council, Jalna decided to charge property tax from the year 2005. We would not enter into the question as to why the Municipal Council did not vigorously pursued its recovery methods over the years and what was the reason for issuing attachment warrants after three to four years of the determination of property tax against the 14 Petitioners. 10. From the material placed before us, the pleadings raised and the submissions advanced, we found that there needs to be solution to the problem at the earliest, which is in the interest of both the parties. The issue involves payment of taxes which the statutory body, Municipal Council, is entitled to recover and as the issue relates to monetary liability on the Petitioners, it is in their interest too that the issue in respect of the said liability gets resolved at the earliest. 11. Both the learned counsel, on instructions of their respective parties, who are present in the Court, stated that they are interested to co- operate with each other in resolving the issue and reaching at a point where the Authorities could decide issue of property taxes which they desire to demand from the individuals. The learned counsel Shri. Adwant, on instructions, stated that the Petitioners do not want to be labelled as 15 evaders of taxes. They were willing and are still ready and willing to co-operate with the Authorities in every best possible manner in determining the property taxes. The counsel submits that the only anxiety is that they must be meeted out with fair treatment, strictly in adherence to the mandatory provisions of the Municipal Council Act. 12. If this is the approach of the parties, then we find that by issuing certain directions by this Court, the procedural irregularities, in case had taken place, could be streamlined and the record could be put straight; so that the parties are not prejudiced on this count. 13. The learned counsel Shri. Munde, on instructions, submits that the procedure could be completed as early as possible. In the light of the reasons stated above, we find that the Petition could be disposed of by giving necessary directions and order, as follows: 16 A) The members of the Petitioner (103 in numbers) are entitled to file fresh objections with the Municipal Council, Jalna within 15 days from today. The Municipal Council shall depute a designated officer before whom the objections could be filed. Record shall be maintained of all the objections which would be filed by the Petitioners. Appropriate endorsement shall be taken of the date of receipt of the objections. B) The Municipal Council, Jalna, thereafter shall deal with the objections in accordance with law. The Municipal Council Authorities 17 are entitled to visit the properties, structures of the Petitioners for collecting data, if they so desire. C) The Petitioners undertake before this Court that in case spot inspection is required, no obstructions would be made to the Authorities of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council Authorities shall intimate to the Petitioners 48 hours before in respect of their spot inspection. The petitioners shall also furnish their E-mail address and fax numbers to the Municipal Council. D) The Municipal Council Authorities shall consider the 18 written objections and shall even hear the Petitioners, if they desire to be heard orally too. After hearing objections, the Municipal Council shall pass brief reasoned order on each of the objections. E) The Municipal Council shall complete this exercise within three months from today. F) The copy of the order passed by the Municipal Council shall be made available by the Municipal Council Authorities to the Petitioners, on demand. G) The bill of demands, the orders of attachment of properties already issued by the Municipal Council against 19 the member of the Petitioners are quashed and set aside. H) All the issues are kept open. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the objections raised by the Petitioners before this Court. I) We clarify that the Order has been passed with the approval of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, instructed by the respective parties, who are present in the Court. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp1723.09