Disposed

Marwah Industrial Premises Co-Op.Soceity Ltd.and Anr. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2009WP/251/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner company filed a writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation's water quota and tax demands for a specific period. The Division Bench dismissed the earlier petition regarding this same period but granted liberty to seek representation. The Court held that the Corporation did not consider the representation to refix the quota because the underlying grievance was already sub-jud

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit demanded amount before challenging calculation; Corporation directed to compute and communicate charges.

Marwah Industrial Premises Co-Op.Soceity Ltd.and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 251 OF 2000

¶5

Marwah Industrial Premises
Co.operative Society Ltd.
And anr. ...Petitioners

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika
and ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.F.Devitre, Sr.Counsel with Mr.J.P.Sen i/b
Federal & Rashmikant for the Petitioners.
Ms.S.M.Modle for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, &

¶10

 R.G.KETKAR, JJ

¶11

DATED: 9th September, 2009

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.Heard the learned Counsel for both

¶14

sides. The Petitioners had filed Writ

¶15

Petition No.1862 of 1988 before this Court

¶16

challenging the quota of water supply fixed

¶17

by the Municipal Corporation and the demand

¶18

¶19

notice dated 21st August, 1987. This demand
notice related to the period for the years
1985, 1986, 1987. The Division Bench of this

¶20

Court by order dated 6th May, 1998 dismissed
the petition. However, granted liberty to the
Petitioners to make representation to the
Corporation.ThePetitionersmade

¶21

representation to the Corporation for
refixing the water quota from the year 1989
till date. The Corporation did not fix the

¶22

quota, but demanded the amount and therefore,
this petition was filed. There was an interim
order passed by the court dated 8-1-2001 by
which the Petitioners were directed to
deposit the amount and the Corporation was
directed to fix the water quota in accordance
with law by taking into consideration the
consumption for the last successive twelve
months prior to the date of representation
i.e. 16-11-1998. Pursuant to that direction

¶23

¶24

the Corporation by letter dated 25th
September, 2000 has communicated that it has
fixed the water quota for the period from
16-11-1998 to 31-1-2001. The water quota

¶25

fixed by the Corporation for the aforesaid
period was not under challenge. Therefore, so

¶26

far as the period from 16-11-1998 to
31-1-2001 is concerned, the dispute is only

¶27

on calculation of the tax payable. So far as
the period subsequent to 31-1-2001 is
concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for

¶28

the Petitioners has stated before us that
there is no dispute between the Corporation
and the Petitioners regarding water charges
for that period. So far as the period from
1989 to 15-11-1998 is concerned, according to
the Petitioners they are entitled to have the

¶29

water quota refixed, because during that
period their earlier writ petition No.1862 of

¶30

1988 was pending in this court.

¶31

¶32

2.In our opinion, the Petitioners were

¶33

not justified in claiming refixation of the

¶34

water quota for the period during which the
writ petition was pending after their writ
petition was dismissed by the Court. If the
Petitioners had any grievance about the water
quota fixed by the Corporation during the
pendency of the petition, the Petitioners
should have filed an independent petition
challenging the fixation of the water quota
or should have amended their pending
petition. The Petitioners cannot be permitted

¶35

to make a grievance about the revision of the
water quota for the period during which the
writ petition was pending, after dismissal of
the writ petition. In our opinion, therefore,

¶36

the representation made by the Petitioners

¶37

for that purpose could not have been
considered by the Corporation. In this view

¶38

¶39

of the matter, therefore, in our opinion,
following order would meet the ends of
justice.

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i)Within a period of six weeks from today

¶42

the Corporation shall communicate to the
Petitioners the charges that may be still

¶43

due from the Petitioners for the period
from 1989 to 15-11-1998 in accordance
with the decision of the Corporation for
that period.

¶44

(ii) So far as the period from 16-11-1998
to31-1-2001isconcerned,the

¶45

Corporation shall calculate the water
charges as per the decision of the

¶46

Corporation contained in the letter dated

¶47

25-9-2001 and communicate it to the
Petitioners.Whilemakingthis

¶48

calculation the Corporation shall give

¶49

¶50

credit to the Petitioners for any amount

¶51

that the Petitioners have deposited with
the Corporation in that regard. There is
some dispute between the parties whether
the demand made by the Corporation also
included the property tax. According to
the Petitioners, they have paid the
property tax. The Corporation shall while
making the calculation look into that
aspect also.

¶52

(iii) After service of the calculations on
the Petitioners, the Petitioners shall be
at liberty to challenge the calculation
in accordance with law, if they are
aggrieved by the calculations made by the
Corporation. However, before making any
challenge the Petitioners shall first
deposit the amount demanded with the
Corporation, without prejudice to their
rights to challenge the demand.

¶53

¶54

(iv) Rule made absolute accordingly. No

¶55

order as to costs.

¶56

 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶57

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Marwah Industrial Premises Co-Op.Soceity Ltd.and Anr. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marwah Industrial Premises Co-Op.Soceity Ltd.and Anr. v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Tabassum M.Bilgi Vs the Medical Council of India and Ors.

Mangala Anil Padekar Vs the Secretary, Shivner Mitr Mandal Panerwadi and Ors.

Jatya Pal Singh and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

J.Madhusudana Rao Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Divine Child High School Vs the Mun.Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Abdul Majid Abdul Razak Qureshi Vs the Mun.Corpn.of Greater Bombay