Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Ors. . v. State of Mah. and Anr. .
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Bombay struck down specific clauses of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees (Amendment) Rules 1999, ruling that levying tax based on total area rather than annual letting value violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating unequals as equals.
What did the court decide?
Clauses 2 to 4 and 5(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees (Amendment) Rules 1999 struck down as violative of Article 14.
What the court decided
1/18
PIL60.01.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION NO.60 OF 2001
| PETITIIONERS: | 1. | Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde, Age |
|---|---|---|
| major, Occ.-Retired, R/of Plot No. 124, Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar Society No.3, Morewadi, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur. |
||
| 2. | Sou. Sulochana Jaipal Koregave, Age major, Occ.- Housewife, R/of Plot No. 191, Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar Society No.1, Morewadi, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur. |
|
| 3. | Dinkarrao Vithalrao Jawade, Age major, occ.-Retired, R/of Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar, Morewadi, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur. |
|
| 4. | Sharad Devappa Kamble, Age major, R/of 17, ‘Shashi’, Dip Sevak Hsg. |
|
| Society, Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar, |
||
| Panchgaon, Tal. Karvir, Dist. Kolhapur. |
||
| 5. | Annasaheb Bandu Patil, Age major, R/of Ratnappa Kumbhar Nagar Society No.2, Panchgaon, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur. -VERSUS- |
|
| RESPONDENTS: | 1. | State of Maharashtra Through the |
| Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development & Water Conservation Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. |
||
| 2. | The Gram Panchayat, Morewadi, Through its Gram Sevak, having its |
|
| Office at Morewadi, Tal.- Karvir, Dist.- Kolhapur. |
PIL60.01.odt 2/18
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether levying property tax based on total area instead of annual letting value violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the Amendment Rules treating unequals as equals by ignoring value and age are discriminatory.
Whether establishing satisfaction against arbitrary assessment cures the constitutional defect in the tax assessment method.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde
- petitioner
Sou. Sulochana Jaipal Koregave
- petitioner
Dinkarrao Vithalrao Jawade
- petitioner
Sharad Devappa Kamble
- petitioner
Annasaheb Bandu Patil
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court