1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2243 OF 2010 Premkishan Malhotra .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.A.N.Pathan for petitioner Mrs.T.H.Puranik BMC CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th January 2011. P.C.: . This is a petition challenging the order of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 23rd June 2010 informing the petitioner that since no complaint was made within fifteen days against the rateable value of the property the said fixation has been confirmed. 2 My attention is invited by the petitioner to the latter part of the order wherein the Assistant Assessor and Collector, ‘D’ Ward has stated that the petitioner, if he so desires, can make a fresh application but it should reach the office of the Corporation within stipulated period i.e 20th November 2010 to 14th December 2010 when the same will be registered as general complaint against the rateable value for the current financial year 2011-2012 and shall be disposed of on its merits and the effect will be given from 1st April 2011. 2 3 The petitioner has stated in the petition that she is occupying a flat being Flat No.34 in Poonam Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioner has pointed out that from December 2008 to April 2010 there was an administrator appointed and during the tenure of the administrator there were certain problems. The petitioner has invited my attention to paras 6 to 8 of the petition and has contended that the petitioner came to know about revision of rateable value and increase in property taxes only on 17th March 2010 and thereafter a letter was addressed to the said administrator about not forwarding any of the special notices served on the Society to the petitioner who is individual flat holder. The special notices were for the period 2008-2009. Due to the negligence of the administrator the petitioner did not receive the letters/special notices and that is how after the administrator was removed the matter was taken up with the Chairman. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order and he does not wish to make a fresh complaint by exercising the option as set out in the order as that would cause grave prejudice and loss. The petitioner has paid 60% of the demand but would like to raise appropriate pleas about the fixation of the rateable value and increase in property taxes for the earlier period i.e 2008-2009. The petitioner states that in the peculiar facts when no opportunity was given to the petitioner and the petitioner had no access to the special notice as well, this Court should take a lenient view and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. 4 On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the BMC has stated that the petitioner has inducted a licensee and therefore the petitioner did not receive the copy of the special notice. The petitioner cannot blame the 3 BMC if he is not in physical possession of the premises or that the society/administrator did not forward a copy of the special notice to him. In these circumstances, the order under challenge does not require any interference and particularly because of option given thereunder. 5 After hearing both sides and perusing with their assistance the petition and the affidavits on record, in my view, in the peculiar facts of this case one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to object to the fixation of the rateable value and increase in property taxes proposed for the earlier years i.e 2008-2009. This order will not be treated as a precedent and is passed in peculiar facts because the petitioner has complained that the administrator who was put in charge of the society did not forward the copies of the special notice issued by the BMC. The Chairman also could not render any assistance to the petitioner as records were with the administrator. For all these reasons, following order will meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R (a) If the petitioner forwards a written complaint to the Assistant Assessor and Collector, ‘D’Ward about fixation of the rateable value/ increase in property taxes proposed for the year 2008-09 within a period of seven working days from today, the Corporation shall entertain the said complaint and give a hearing to the petitioner and pass orders on the said complaint within a period of four weeks from the first appearance of the petitioner. 4 (b) The petition is disposed off in above terms and needless to state that if the complaint is not filed within the period aforestated, the rateable value as fixed will be final and the petitioner will only have option as laid down in the order passed by the Assistant Assessor and Collector and impugned in this petition, namely, dated 23rd June 2010. (c) All concerned to act upon authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)