In a contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the recovery of property taxes levied in 1990, alleging willful disobedience of a previous order. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the levy of 1990 taxes was exempt from the Court's directive to place levy matters before the Standing Committee.
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.
3-CP.373-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.373 OF 2019 IN WP/3942/2018
VENKAT BHAGWANRAO BEDRE
VERSUS
M.D. SINGH, COMMISSIONER,
LATUR CITY MUNICPAL CORPORATION, LATUR
Mr. H.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. N.P.Patil-Jamalpurkar, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 18, 2019
PER COURT :-
Heard Mr.H.V.Patil, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.N.P.Patil-Jamalpurkar, learned
Counsel for the respondent – Corporation.
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent committed willful disobedience of
the judgment and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.3942 of 2018. The petition
is based on an item published in the newspaper annexed
to this petition at Exh.71.
2 3-CP.373-19
3.By inviting our attention to the judgment
and order of this Court dated 01.03.2019, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court
had directed Municipal Corporation, Latur, to place
the subject of levy of property tax before the
Standing Committee of the Corporation and act in
accordance with the decision thereon, so as to ensure
compliance of Section 99 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations Act (“the Act”, for short). He submits
that the respondent – Corporation, by giving a go-
bye to the provisions of the Act and the order of
this Court, is seeking recovery of the property
taxes.
4.Upon perusal of the judgment and order dated
01.03.2019 of this Court, it reveals that while
dealing with the challenge to the property taxes
effected by the respondent - Corporation from
15.02.2018, this Court found that the rates of the
property tax under challenge, were already levied by
erstwhile Municipal Council way back in the year
3 3-CP.373-19
2009. This Court also took a note of the fact that after the property taxes were levied upto 2009, new buildings have come up in the span of over ten years and those buildings/properties were not subjected to levy of property tax. The Corporation took a decision to take search of the existing properties and for that purpose, engaged a private agency. This Court had observed that in view of the principle Qui facit per alium facit per se , which suggests that he, who does through another, does himself, and a private agency assisted the Corporation in collecting data. It was also observed by this Court that the persons, who were aggrieved by levy of taxes, availed the remedy of appeal under Section 406 and the petitioner also was at liberty to avail said remedy of appeal. Then, this Court, referring to the issue of noncompliance of provisions of Section 99, had further observed that there was no revision of rates levied by the erstwhile Municipal Council and as such, it was not necessary for the Corporation to place that
4 3-CP.373-19
subject before the Standing Committee/ Corporation.
This Court had also made it clear that as regards the
property tax, which has been levied for the first
time on a number of properties which came into
existence between the interregnum, it would be
necessary for the Corporation to place the subject
before the Standing Committee and act in accordance
with the decision thereon. Ultimately, this Court had
directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Latur to henceforthplace the subject of levy of
property tax before the Standing Committee and act in
accordance with the decision thereon so as to ensure
compliance of Section 99 of the Act.
5.Now, reading paragraph 19 of the order dated
01.03.2019, it can safely be said that levy of taxes
in the year 1990 and reiteration of this levy of tax
is saved of from the exercise of putting the subject
of levy of tax before the Standing Committee. The
item published in the newspaper placed on record
clearly shows that the Commissioner of respondent –
5 3-CP.373-19
Corporation is seeking recovery of the taxes levied
in the year 1990. As such, the submissions of learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the exercise
undertaken by the respondent - Corporation is
contrary to the order passed by this Court and the
action of the respondent is of willful disobedience,
cannot be accepted. The petition, thus, proceeds on
misreading of the order.
6.In view of the above, we are of the opinion
that the petition has no merit and deserves to be
dismissed at threshold. The same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent Corporation is in willful disobedience of the Court's judgment dated 01.03.2019 regarding property tax recovery.
Whether the petition has merit in the current stage of the proceedings.
Venkat Bhagwanrao Bedre
M.D. Singh
Prasanna B. Varale
R.G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court