On consent, the High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal against the challenged demand notice for enhanced property tax. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Liberty granted to file a statutory appeal within one month; respondent to take no coercive steps during this period.
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.
W.P. No.2618 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P. No.2618 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.2685 and 2686 of 2023
T.Umavathi
... Petitioner
vs.
rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the file of the third respondent demand notice dated 22.12.2022 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to compute/issue the
1/5
W.P. No.2618 of 2023
enhanced property tax from 01.04.2022.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Ashok Kumar For respondents : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up
for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.This writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 22.12.2022 issued by the third respondent and seeking for a direction to the third respondent to compute/issue the enhanced property tax from 01.04.2022.
3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand notice dated 22.12.2022 issued under the City Municipal Corporation Act 1920. According to the petitioner, the impugned demand notice is arbitrary and illegal.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit on
instructions that the petitioner will file a Statutory Appeal as against the
2/5
W.P. No.2618 of 2023
impugned demand notice, provided sufficient time is granted by this Court for the petitioner to file the same. The said statement is recorded.
5.Heard Mr.V.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
6.No prejudice would be caused to any of the parties, if such a liberty is granted to the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a Statutory Appeal if aggrieved by the impugned demand notice dated 22.11.2022, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of one month from today to enable the petitioner to file the Statutory Appeal. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps stand closed. No costs.
02.02.2023
3/5
W.P. No.2618 of 2023
vga
4/5
W.P. No.2618 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vga
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
W.P. No.2618 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.2685 and 2686 of 2023
02.02.2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether liberty should be granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal instead of accepting the writ petition remedy.
Whether the impugned demand notice for enhanced property tax can be challenged via statutory appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Umavathi
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply
The Director of Municipal Administration
The Commissioner, Dharapuram Municipal Corporation
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
