Disposed

Tej Khanna v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2011WP/589/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, relying on anticipating a similar past order, directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to serve individual demand notices to society members to ensure they could raise objections against tax fixation within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file a written complaint to the Assistant Assessor and Collector within 15 days; the Corporation was directed to entertain it and pass an order with a hearing within 12

Tej Khanna Vs the Municipal Corporation… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp589.11.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 589 OF 2011

Tej Khanna

....Petitioner.

Vs.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Ms. Aliya N. Pathan for the Petitioner Ms. T.H. Puranik for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 8^th APRIL, 2011.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

In view of the averments made in the Petition, basically para

¶15

Nos. 8,9,12, 14 and 17 and as this Court in a similar matter, by order dated 24^th January, 2010, permitted the Petitioner to file complaint to the Assistant Assessor and Collector, I see there is no reason the same benefit should not be given to the Petitioner. The service of such demand notice by the Corporation on the concerned persons are necessary so that they can raise appropriate objection to the demand notice sent by the Corporation with regard to the fixation of the ratable value and/or increase in the property taxes. The notice to the

¶16

wp589.11.sxw

¶17

¶18

society and basically when the administrator is in-charge of the society, always create complications, as it is difficult for the assessee to take objection within stipulated time, if such individual notice and/or such demand notices not served. It is desirable that the Corporation must serve notices individually, basically when there is no power given to the authority to condone the delay in accepting the complaint/objections to the said demand. If objection not filed within a stipulated period, it results automatically into the confirmation of the demand so raised and thereafter a procedure of filing Appeal needs to be invoked by the parties, which means pre-deposit of the amount so raised. Therefore, without observing anything further on the merits, at this stage, in view of the earlier order dated 24^th January, 2011, I am inclined to pass the following order-

¶19

(i) If the Petitioner files written complaint to the Assistant Assessor and Collector, "D" Ward about fixation of the rateable value within a period of 15 days from today, the Corporation shall entertain the

¶20

said complaint and to give a hearing to the Petitioner and pass order within a period of 12 weeks from the first appearance of the Petitioner.

¶21

wp589.11.sxw

¶22

¶23

ii) If the Petitioner fails to file complaint within aforesaid period, the demand notice so sent shall be treated as final and binding.

¶24

iii) All concerned to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

2 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶26

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Tej Khanna v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Khanna v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 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

Vasudeo K. Patkar and 12 Ors. Vs Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Dina Asim Tapovan and 9 Ors. Vs Goregaon Siddarth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. and Ors. and Pradeep J. Desai and Ors.

Dina Asim Tapovan and 9 Ors. Vs Goregaon Siddarth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. and Ors. and A.K. Shredharan and Ors.

M/S. Khyber Restaurant Vs Baldeo Singh Chandel

Madhusudan Janardhan Seth and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Ashok Saha and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.