1 wp1201-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2011 Bhaktawar Commercial Coop. Society Ltd. And Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Fredun De'Vitre, Senior Advocate, Ms.Sanaya Dadachanji, Ashutosh Kaushik, Ankush Vithlani i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for petitioners Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mrs.T.H.Puranik for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th September 2011. P.C.: 1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against a special notice dated 29th March 2001 issued by the respondents under section 167 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short the Act) and the orders 2 wp1201-11.doc passed by the Investigating Officer dated 24th March 2004 in Complaint No.ACR/282/2000-01 and further Special Notice issued under the same enactment and the same sections so also the orders of the Investigating Officer. 2] It is apparent from the record that the dispute is in relation to revision of rateable value. The petitioner has stated in the petition itself and particularly in para 4.17 that being aggrieved by the orders of the Investigating Officer dated 3rd February 2011, the petitioners filed two Municipal Appeals (L) No.961 and 962 of 2011 before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. These appeals are still pending. It is stated that the Supreme Court has decided Civil Appeal Nos.4120 of 2006, 100 of 2007, 211 of 2007 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No.265 of 2011 on 8th March 2011 and the matter stands remanded back to this Court. That the pending proceedings before this Court involve identical controversy and therefore this petition be admitted although the alternate remedy is availed off. 3] The principal grievance appears to be that despite the pending proceedings before the Small Causes Court, based on the 3 wp1201-11.doc revised rateable value, property tax continues to be demanded and which is to the tune of Crores of Rupees. 4] After hearing learned Senior Counsel appearing for parties and perusing the petition with their assistance, it is apparent that the petition involves disputed questions of facts. Whether the revision of rateable value and the bills raised based thereon are valid and legal or not cannot be decided only on the basis of the statutory provisions. It will have to be determined as to whether the complaint has been disposed of in accordance with law and applicable regulations, circulars and policies and whether the revision of the rateable value can be justified on that basis. Once there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy available by way of an appeal to the Small Causes Court and which appeals have already been filed, nothing prevents the petitioners from raising appropriate pleas, including with regard to the legality of the revision in the rateable value and levy, assessment and valuation of taxes. All contentions of parties in that behalf are kept open and the petition is disposed of. 4 wp1201-11.doc 5] I have no doubt in my mind that the Court of Small Causes will take into account all the pleas, including as set out in the grounds of this petition and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. Merely because there is a condition imposed to pay the tax based on revised rateable value during the pendency of the appeal, is no ground to interfere as imposition of such condition has not been found to be either onerous, excessive leave alone arbitrary. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)