The Nagpur Municipal ... vs The Chief Secretary,State Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2970 Bom

                                1                                        wp4014.01




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 4014 0F 2001


 The Nagpur Municipal Corporation Housing
 Tax Grievance Redressal Committee, 
 K-10, Jaripatka, Nagpur-14, through its 
 Member, Shankar Chetumal Gulani, 
 Aged about 38 years, Resident of Block
 No.10, Kuchha Vasantshah Chowk, 
 Jaripatka, Nagpur-14.                                 ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 1) The Chief Secretary,
     State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, 
     Mumbai - 32.

 2) The State of Maharashtra,
     through Urban Development Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 3) The Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
     though its Commissioner, Civil Lines, 
     Nagpur.                                           ....       RESPONDENTS


 ______________________________________________________________

                         None for the petitioner,
         Shri A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
                       None for respondent No.3.
  ______________________________________________________________




::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:42 :::
                                           2                                  wp4014.01




                               CORAM :   B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                                         ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

DATED : 08-06-2017

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

1. Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.V. Palshikar appears

for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no appearance for petitioner

committee or respondent No.3.

2. Grievance is about arbitrariness or highhandedness in the

matter of assessment and levy of property tax by Nagpur Municipal

Corporation. Some assertions in this respect are contained in

paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The respondent No.3 has filed reply

to it and in paragraph 7 thereof these assertions in paragraph 4 have

been denied. It is no doubt true that a rejoinder thereafter has been

filed on record by the petitioner but on 21-11-2003 Additional

Commissioner (Assessment) has submitted a report on specific cases.

This report shows house number and ward number in relation to which

the study has been undertaken.

3. Several disputed questions arise. The petitioner has not

turned up to assist the Court thereafter. Not only this but in rejoinder

3 wp4014.01

filed after this report, they have not dealt with the specific cases

mentioned therein.

4. In this situation, as the matter has remained pending for

last more than sixteen years, we grant petitioner leave to make

appropriate representation pointing out instances of abuse or misuse of

power in the matter of levy - assessment of property tax. We direct

respondent No.3, through its Municipal Commissioner to take suitable

decisions on such representation within four weeks after it receipts.

With these directions, we dispose of writ petition. No

costs.

                                 JUDGE                                     JUDGE

adgokar