The PIL seeking a direction to implement the JNNURM property tax recovery method was dismissed. The court held that choosing tax collection policies is not justiciable as it involves legislative prerogative and governmental expertise, unless arbitrary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil-76-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2012
Rajendra P. Phanse .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
Mr. V. P. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. B. Sawant, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. S. Pakale and Ms. Puranik, for BMC. Mr. G. Hariharan, for Respondent No.8.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 21st JANUARY, 2016.
P.C:-
This Public Interest Litigation seeks a directions to Mumbai Municipal Corporation to implement the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Method of recovering property tax within the city of Mumbai. The prayer sought by the Petitioner reads as under:-
“(a) Direct Respondent No.3 Mumbai Municipal Corporation to implement JNNURM property tax ULB level reform (Annexure A) for effective implementation & recovery of property tax structure in a time bound manner by following JNNURM Norms by bringing all the properties in the city in the tax net.”
2 The Petition as filed does not assail any provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as being unconstitutional. The property taxes are levied and collected in terms of the statutory provisions
1 of 2
S.R.JOSHI
pil-76-2012
in Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The prayer as sought by the Petitioner as reproduced hereabove is for a direction to the Municipal Corporation (Corporation) to adopt a particular policy/method to recover its property taxes. It is the prerogative of the Corporation to decide on the merits and demerits of different/competing policies/method to recover property taxes and adopt a particular policy.
3 We do not possesses the necessary data and expertize to decide upon the competing policies/ methods of recovering property taxes. As held by the Supreme Court in BALCO Employees Union v/s. U.O.I. (2002) 2 SCC 333, Courts cannot sit over the policy of the legislature in making the law, so also it cannot examine whether a particular policy of the government/corporation is the best. The choice of policy/ method for collecting property taxes cannot be a subject matter of Judicial Review unless it is per se arbitrary or violative of statutory provisions or of the Constitution of India.
4 In the above view, Public Interest Litigation as filed by the Petitioner cannot be entertained.
5 Accordingly, Public Interest Litigation is dismissed . No order as to costs.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA,J.)
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
2 of 2
S.R.JOSHI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to implement a specific policy method for recovering property taxes under JNNURM.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BALCO Employees Union v/s. U.O.I.Referred¶15
BALCO Employees Union v/s. U.O.I. (2002) 2 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
Rajendra P. Phanse
The State of Maharashtra
Mumbai Municipal Corporation
M.S.Sanklecha
B.P.Colabawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
