THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.723 OF 2011 Dated:24.10.2011 Between: Visakhapatnam Apartment Residents Welfare Association (VARWA), registered No.1319 of 2005, represented by its General Secretary A.V.Ramana Rao, having its office At B-25, LIC Apartments, Opp:MMTC Colony, HB Colony Road, Visakhapatnam .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.723 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The Visakhapatnam Apartment Residents Welfare Association (hereafter, the association) is aggrieved by Memo No.5315/TC.1/2010- 2, dated 28.06.2010, issued by the Government whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of powers under Section 679-E of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity, the GHMC Act), the Government directed the third respondent to implement the rates published by Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (VMC) in Gazette No.56 of 2007, dated 19.09.2007 and Gazette No.123 of 2006. It is mentioned that the Government also indicated therein that as per sub-rules (1) to (8) of Rule 7-B of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990 (the GHMC Rules), the property tax should be assessed based on the rental values but not percent of enhancement to the existing tax as proposed in the instant case. The petitioner which, statedly, is a registered association with more than 380 flat owners as members would contend that after the issuance of the Government Memo, the third respondent issued special notices enhancing property tax; the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.08.2010 before the third respondent assailing the exorbitant and irrational enhancement of property tax ignoring the council resolution dated 11.02.2010 and that even though more than 45000 revision petitions by tax payers are pending, the VMC is implementing the Government Orders in the impugned memo. It is also contended that the Government Memo is contrary to Section 198 of the GHMC Act and, therefore, would not fall within the purview of Section 679-E of the GHMC Act. Making a reference to Part IX A of the Constitution of India, especially Article 243-W and Article 243-X, it is contended by the petitioner that the impugned memo is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992. At the stage of admission itself, the Commissioner of VMC filed counter affidavit justifying the special notices issued pursuant to the impugned Government Memo. It is also brought out that Rules 9 and 10 of the GHMC Rules, which put a ceiling on the upward revision of municipal taxes, have been omitted by the Government vide their order in G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 05.03.2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, the VMC in their General Body Meeting on 17.08.2011 passed the Resolution No.482 of 2011. It was decided therein that for residential houses, the revision of tax shall not exceed 75% of the existing tax as on 31.03.2011. Further, it was resolved to request the Government to approve the resolution. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to the action taken by the VMC, liberty should be given to the petitioner to approach the Government for redressal. We keep open all the questions raised in this writ petition. As it is likely to take some time for the Government to decide the question, we observe that if the members of the petitioner association have already paid the arrears of entire tax as on 31.03.2010, no coercive action shall be taken against them. We also record the submission of the Standing Counsel for VMC that most of the assessees have already paid the enhanced tax. The Writ Petition, with the above observations and directions, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 24.10.2011 KH