Allowed

Mr.a.Manivasagan v. 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip

Madras HC29 Mar 2016WP/37985/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the orders imposing enhanced property tax by the Dharmapuri Municipality. The respondents were directed to issue fresh notices and assess tax in accordance with Council Resolution No. 194 after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondent Municipality directed to issue fresh notice and assess tax per Resolution No. 194 after hearing petitioners.

Mr.a.Manivasagan Vs 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. Nos.37985 and 38518 of 2003 & W.M.P.Nos. 46126, 46127, 46748 & 46749 of 2013

¶6

A.Manivasagan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.37985 of 2003 M.Shankar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.38518 of 2003

¶7

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept Fort.St.George, Chennai 9.

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶10

3.The Commissioner Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri.

¶11

.. Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶12

PRAYER IN W.P.No.37985 of 2003: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Commissioner, Dharmapuri Municipality, assessed for Rs.5,062/vide Notice No.12948, Asst.No.15366 for Door No.15-4/16 for the year 2002-2003 and quash the same and also issue direction to the Commissioner, Dharmpuri Municipality to assess property tax as resolved by the Municipal Council, Dharmapuri in resolution No.194 dated 25.09.2002.

¶13

PRAYER IN W.P.No.38518 of 2003: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Commissioner, Dharmapuri Municipality, assessed for Rs.1,922/vide Notice No.004123 , Asst.No.16709 for Door No.1A, and quash the same and also issue direction to the Commissioner, Dharmpuri Municipality to assess property tax as resolved by the Municipal Council, Dharmapuri in resolution No.194 dated 25.09.2002.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumaravel (in both WPs) For Respondents :Mr.R.Rajeswaran - R1 & R2 (in both WPs) Special Govt.Pleader Mr.S.Muthu Selvam - R3 Govt. Advocate

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.S.Kumaravel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.Muthu Selvam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶18

2.The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent Municipality and demanding enhanced property tax and for a consequential direction to assess the property in terms of the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 25.09.2002.

¶19

3.The Writ Petitions were admitted by this Court and an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner should not be in arrears of undisputed tax continue to pay the same until further orders.

¶20

4.When the matter is heard today, it is seen that the respondents though have entered appearance through the counsel, have not filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, at this stage to grant them further opportunity to file counter affidavit and contest the matter on merits is not feasible.

¶21

5.In the light of the fact that the interim orders are in force till date and the petitioners rely upon the resolution of the respondent Municipality, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and the respondent Municipality is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioners and proceed in accordance with law, after affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(V)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

rpa

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government

¶29

Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept Fort.St.George, Chennai 9.

¶30

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

3.The Commissioner Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri.

¶33

- 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.19690

¶34

- 2 ccs to Mr.S. Muthuselvam, Advocate Sr.20028, 20027

¶35

W.P. Nos. 37985 and 38518 of 2003

¶36

RSY(CO)
Eu.13.4.16

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.a.Manivasagan v. 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.a.Manivasagan v. 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip

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

P.Srinivasan, The President, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

G.Rathinam, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

P.Balasubramaniam Vs The Secretary to Government

Smt.Aboorvam, Vs The District Collector

K.Natarajan, Vs The District Collector

Chettinad International Coal Vs The Competition Commission