Dismissed

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another v. Collector, Washim and 2 Others

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014PIL/97/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 97 of 2013, petitioners sought a declaration that property tax assessment by the Washim Municipal Council violated Section 114 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) Act, 1965, and directed a refund. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench declined to entertain the petition as PIL, holding no public interest existed and no material was produced to justify such a remedy against tax colle

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of to the effect that the High Court declined to entertain it as a public interest litigation.

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pil97.1 3

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 97 OF 2013

¶5

Lakhan S/o Sahadeo Malik and another

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Collector, Washim and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.S.G.Joshi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.M.K.Pathan, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.A.M.Ghare, counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 17.09.2014.

¶13

By this petition, which is registered as a public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the assessment of property tax by Municipal Council, Washim is contrary to the provisions of Section 114 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships) Act, 1965. A direction is sought to the respondent No.2-Nagar Parishad, Washim to refund the excess amount of property tax collected from the citizens of Washim.

¶14

On one of the previous dates of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the challenge to levy and assessment of property tax could be made by an individual only and there may not be any public interest in the said matter. Similar submission was made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to canvass that a public interest litigation would not lie in respect of a challenge to

¶15

pil97.1 3

¶16

2/2

¶17

the levy and assessment of property tax. Time was sought on several occasions by the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out some material before this Court to show that a public interest litigation could be filed against the imposition and levy of property tax. However, the petitioner has not produced or referred to any material to point out that a public interest litigation could be entertained even in respect of improper imposition of taxes.

¶18

The learned Assistant Government Pleader places reliance on the provisions of Section 169(2)(b) and subsection 2A thereof to canvass that a person aggrieved by wrongful imposition of tax has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Magistrate and the Property Tax Appeal Committee could also suo motu review the cases where the Committee finds that there is a threefold increase.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, we decline to entertain this petition and dispose of the same with no order as to costs.

¶20

The points raised in the petition are, however, kept open.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

KHUNTE

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another v. Collector, Washim and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another v. Collector, Washim and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mohanlal Motilal Bhandari Vs Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Ajit Sakharam Kandar and Anr. Vs the States of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Shri. Pramod Sahebrao Arsul Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Purushottam Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Ors.

Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and 4 Others

Shri Nitin S/O Govindrao Lunge Vs the Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati and 4 Others

Purushottam S/O Dadarao Deshmukh Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar, Amravati and 3 Others

Shri Sarangdhar Namdeo Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 3 Others

Moreshwar S/O Sitaramji Raut Vs the Hon'Ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, and 5 Ors.

Karnadharsingh @Jaisingh S/O Vitthalsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary General Administration Department Mumbai and Others